9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the search u/s 132(1) of the Income-tax Act. 2. Compliance with section 132(9A) of the Income-tax Act. 3. Violation of principles of natural justice in the order u/s 132(5). 4. Validity of simultaneous orders u/s 132(5) against the petitioners and their companies. Summary: 1. Legality of the Search u/s 132(1): The petitioners challenged the validity of the search conducted by the income-tax authorities, arguing that there was no material or information justifying the search. The court examined section 132(1) and concluded that the Commissioner had sufficient information to form a reasonable belief that the conditions for a search existed. The court referenced the Supreme Court decisions in ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das and Madnani Engineering Works Ltd., emphasizing that the belief must be held in good faith. Upon reviewing the file, the court found that the Commissioner acted on detailed information and analysis, including anonymous petitions, and thus the exercise of power was justified. 2. Compliance with Section 132(9A): The petitioners argued that the authorised officer did not hand over the seized assets to the Income-tax Officer having jurisdiction within the stipulated 15 days, as required by section 132(9A). The court held that since the assets were handed over to the Commissioner, who is a superior officer, this constituted sufficient compliance with section 132(9A). Therefore, the jurisdiction of the Second Income-tax Officer, Panjim, to pass the order u/s 132(5) was valid. 3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The petitioners contended that they were not given an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses whose statements were relied upon by the Income-tax Officer in the order u/s 132(5). The court noted that the order u/s 132(5) is of a summary nature and does not conclude the rights of the petitioners, who can challenge the findings during the assessment proceedings. The court also pointed out that the order is appealable, and any procedural breaches should be addressed through the appellate process. Thus, the court did not find sufficient grounds to quash the order on this basis. 4. Validity of Simultaneous Orders u/s 132(5): The petitioners argued that the Income-tax Officer could not pass orders u/s 132(5) against both the Bandekars and their companies for the same assets. The court clarified that the cash and jewellery were accepted by the Bandekars as their own, while the fixed deposit receipts were claimed by both the Bandekars and the companies. The Income-tax Officer, not satisfied with the claims, retained the assets in protective custody. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Lalji Haridas v. ITO, which allows for protective orders in cases of doubt regarding asset ownership. The court concluded that the orders were valid and the Bandekars had no grounds for complaint, especially since the companies did not challenge the orders. Conclusion: The court discharged the rule in each of the petitions with costs, finding no merit in the reliefs sought by the petitioners.
|
