9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Challenge of assessment order and subsequent appellate orders, failure to provide reasons for orders, continued retention of seized documents without proper communication of reasons.
Analysis: The judgment delivered by the High Court of Delhi pertains to a writ petition challenging various orders related to an assessment conducted under section 132 of the Income-tax Act. The petitioner's business premises were searched, leading to an assessment order for the year 1984-85, which was subsequently challenged in appeals. The court noted that the assessment order merged into the appellate orders, and alternative remedies were available under the Income-tax Act, which the petitioner had utilized. Regarding specific orders dated February 2, 1989, and March 29, 1989, the petitioner contended that these were passed without providing an opportunity to be heard or reasons for the decisions. Citing a previous judgment, the court emphasized the necessity for the applicant to be heard and reasons to be given when disposing of applications under section 254(2). In this case, the petitioner was not heard, and the impugned orders lacked reasons, leading to a challenge on procedural grounds. Another significant issue raised was the continued retention of books and documents seized during the raid under section 132 without proper communication of reasons. The court highlighted the importance of promptly informing the assessee of orders under section 132(8) and communicating the reasons for retention. Failure to provide reasons and timely communication rendered the continued retention unjustified in the court's view. In the final ruling, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the challenged orders, and issued a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to hear and dispose of the applications on merits. Additionally, a writ was issued to return the seized documents within three weeks, with the department permitted to obtain attested copies at their expense. The petitioner was instructed to keep the returned materials safely and produce them as required by law, emphasizing compliance with legal procedures. The judgment did not delve into the validity of a specific rule, and no costs were awarded. Overall, the court upheld the petitioner's contentions regarding procedural lapses and ordered appropriate actions to rectify the issues raised during the legal proceedings.
|
