9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Allegation of mala fides in the survey. 2. Legality of conducting the survey beyond office hours. 3. Authority to impound documents during the survey. Summary: 1. Allegation of Mala Fides: The petitioner, an income-tax practitioner and businessman, alleged that the survey conducted on his business premises by the Income-tax Department was mala fide, driven by personal prejudice from the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The petitioner claimed that the survey was orchestrated by the fourth respondent (Commissioner) and the fifth respondent (Deputy Commissioner) to harass him. However, the respondents denied these allegations, stating that the petitioner was in significant tax arrears, necessitating the survey to ascertain the nature of his assets. The court found no merit in the petitioner's allegations of mala fides, noting that the survey was conducted to recover substantial tax arrears and that any personal ill feeling between the petitioner and the Commissioner could not be regarded as the cause for the survey. 2. Legality of Conducting the Survey Beyond Office Hours: The petitioner contended that the survey, which continued from the afternoon of July 26, 1994, until the early hours of July 27, 1994, was illegal as it extended beyond office hours, contrary to section 133A of the Income-tax Act. The court clarified that section 133A allows the income-tax authority to enter the premises during business hours but does not limit the duration of the survey once commenced. The court held that continuing the survey beyond business hours is permissible if necessary, to scrutinize the volume of materials, and thus, the survey was not illegal. 3. Authority to Impound Documents During the Survey: The petitioner argued that the respondents had no authority to impound documents during the survey, citing the express prohibition in section 133A(4) of the Act. The respondents justified the impounding by invoking section 131(1) read with section 133A(6), treating the spot as a camp office. The court rejected this justification, stating that section 133A(6) does not authorize impounding documents found during the survey. The court emphasized that section 133A(4) explicitly prohibits removing any books of account or documents during the survey. Thus, the impounding of documents was declared illegal, and the respondents were directed to return the documents to the petitioner, allowing them to make copies before doing so. Promissory Notes: The court differentiated the seizure of promissory notes, stating that these were attached by the Tax Recovery Officer under rule 30 of the Second Schedule to the Act, pursuant to a certificate for tax recovery. The court upheld the attachment and seizure of the promissory notes, noting that the petitioner had appealed against the recovery, which was stayed. Conclusion: The writ petition was partly allowed. The court ordered the return of all documents removed during the survey, except for the attached promissory notes, permitting the respondents to make copies before returning the documents. No costs were awarded.
|
