9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Compliance with section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the impugned proceedings. 2. Proper approval by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner as required under section 132(5) of the Act. 3. Validity of the order passed by the Income-tax Officer. Comprehensive Analysis: Issue 1: The main issue in this case is whether the impugned proceedings of the Income-tax Officer are in accordance with section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The search conducted at the Petitioner's premises resulted in the seizure of cash, jewellery, and other valuable items. Subsequently, the Income-tax Officer finalized the order, assessing the income and tax liability for the relevant assessment years. The Petitioner challenged the order, primarily on procedural grounds related to section 132(5) compliance. Issue 2: The Petitioner's counsel argued that there was a lack of proper approval by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner as required under section 132(5) of the Act. The counsel contended that the records produced were questionable and raised doubts about the authenticity of the approval process. However, the Department's counsel refuted these claims, presenting evidence that the approval process was duly followed, and the necessary approval was obtained before finalizing the order. The court examined the file and noted that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had approved the draft order, indicating compliance with the statutory requirement. Issue 3: The court clarified that section 132(5) does not mandate explicitly stating the previous approval in the order itself but requires obtaining approval before finalizing the order. The court emphasized that the approval process merely empowers the Income-tax Officer to make the order within the specified timeframe. The court scrutinized the notes made by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, confirming the approval granted on the day before the order was passed. The court dismissed the Petitioner's challenge regarding procedural formality, emphasizing that the validity of the order on merits was beyond the scope of the writ petition. The court upheld the order and dismissed the writ petition with costs. In conclusion, the court ruled that the impugned proceedings complied with the requirements of section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court found that the proper approval by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was obtained before finalizing the order, dismissing the Petitioner's challenge on procedural grounds. The court clarified the legal provisions regarding the approval process and affirmed the validity of the order passed by the Income-tax Officer.
|
