9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenging orders of learned single judge for return of seized books and documents under section 132 of the Income-tax Act. Analysis: The judgment involves three letters patent appeals challenging the orders of the learned single judge regarding the return of seized account books and documents. The learned single judge had directed the handing over of the seized account books to the respondents after initialling and stamping each page with the official seal of the concerned authority. The appellants contended that the orders were without jurisdiction as the Income-tax Department could retain the books for up to 180 days under section 132 of the Act. They argued that returning the books would violate the Act and hinder the assessment process. The court examined section 132 of the Income-tax Act, which empowers authorities to conduct searches and seizures in cases of undisclosed income. The purpose of retaining books for 180 days is to allow the authorities to inspect them for determining undisclosed assets or income. The court clarified that the retention is not meant to penalize the assessee but to aid in assessment. The learned single judge had obtained an undertaking from the respondents to provide the records when required by the Income-tax Department, ensuring access for inspection purposes. The court emphasized that the orders of the learned single judge were not absolute and subject to objections from the appellants. They could approach the judge for modifications if needed. It was noted that passing orders to enforce compliance with the Income-tax Act depends on the circumstances of each case. The learned single judge had the authority to decide on the application and objections filed by the respondents based on the facts presented. Ultimately, the court found no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders and refrained from interfering with them. The judgment concluded by disposing of the appeals and related miscellaneous petitions, indicating that the learned single judge would consider the objections raised by the appellants when presented before him for further proceedings.
|
