9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the search conducted on February 2, 1989. 2. Legality of the search authorization for the locker issued on February 27, 1989. 3. Return of seized books and papers. 4. Restraint on making any assessment against petitioner No. 1. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the search conducted on February 2, 1989: The search on February 2, 1989, was conducted at the residential premises of petitioner No. 1, Lajpat Rai, and was authorized by the Deputy Director of Income-tax (Investigation), Allahabad. The petitioners argued that the search was contrary to the provisions of section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as there was no reason to believe that petitioner No. 1 was in possession of any assets belonging to Subhash Chandra Varshani. They claimed that no search warrant was issued or shown to them. The court examined the records and found that the warrant of authorization was indeed issued and shown to petitioner No. 1, who signed it. The search was a consequence of the search at the business premises of Saraikela Glass Works Ltd., Kandra, where documents connected with the business transaction between the company and Hanuman Minerals, the proprietary business of petitioner No. 1, were found. The court held that the Deputy Director of Investigation, Allahabad, could reasonably believe that petitioner No. 1 was in possession of books of account or other documents useful for the proceedings under the Income-tax Act against the said company or its directors. Therefore, the search was properly authorized, and the consequent proceedings in seizing certain accounts could not be quashed. 2. Legality of the search authorization for the locker issued on February 27, 1989: The search on February 2, 1989, led to the seizure of the key to locker No. 62 at the Allahabad Bank, Katra Branch. However, the authorization for the residential premises did not cover the locker, necessitating a fresh authorization. The Deputy Director of Investigation issued a new warrant on February 27, 1989. The petitioners filed a writ petition, and the respondents were restrained from operating the locker. The court scrutinized the report submitted by the A. D. I. Investigation on February 27, 1989, which requested the search authorization for the locker. The report did not state any information that valuable assets or documents useful for the assessment of Saraikela Glass Works Ltd. or its directors were expected to be stored in the locker. It also did not state that the locker contained unaccounted income/assets of petitioner No. 1. The court found that the report lacked material or reason to justify the search of the locker. Consequently, the warrant of authorization dated February 27, 1989, was quashed as it was against the provisions of section 132 of the Act, protecting the petitioners from an unnecessary breach of privacy. 3. Return of seized books and papers: The petitioners requested the return of bill books and other papers seized during the search. The court noted that the petitioners could ask for the return of the books in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, this issue was addressed within the statutory framework, and no specific relief was granted in this regard. 4. Restraint on making any assessment against petitioner No. 1: The petitioners sought an order restraining the respondents from making any assessment against petitioner No. 1. The court observed that assessment proceedings under the Income-tax Act or the Wealth-tax Act are statutory proceedings. The petition did not state that any assessment proceedings had been initiated in violation of statutory provisions. As such, the court could not grant this relief. Conclusion: The writ petition was partly allowed. The warrant of authorization dated February 27, 1989, directing a search of the locker in the name of petitioner No. 1 was quashed. The search conducted on February 2, 1989, was deemed properly authorized, and the seized books and papers could be returned as per the Income-tax Act. The request to restrain assessment proceedings was denied. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
|
