9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the books of account seized during search and seizure can be retained by the Income Tax Department after the expiry of 180 days under section 132(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The judgment in question pertains to a petition filed by a company, Metal Fittings Pvt. Ltd, challenging the retention of its seized books of account by the Income Tax Department beyond the 180-day period prescribed under section 132(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The company's premises were searched, and books of account were seized between August 6, 1981, and August 18, 1981. The 180-day period from the date of seizure expired on February 14, 1982. The company requested the return of the books on February 26, 1982, but the Department refused, prompting the filing of the petition under Article 226 on March 22, 1982. The key issue revolved around whether the Commissioner could approve the retention of the books after the expiry of the 180-day period. The Income Tax Officer recorded the reasons for retention on March 8, 1982, after the 180 days had elapsed, and the Commissioner approved the retention on March 25, 1982. The court examined the provisions of section 132(8), which require the reasons for retention to be recorded in writing and the Commissioner's approval to be obtained within the 180-day period. The court considered conflicting decisions from the Allahabad High Court and a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, ultimately siding with the latter's view that compliance with these requirements before the expiry of 180 days is mandatory. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of the 180-day period, stating that the language of the provision is prohibitory and restrictive, requiring strict adherence to the timeline for recording reasons and obtaining approval. The court rejected arguments by the Union of India and the Revenue that the provision was directory or that alternative remedies under section 132(10) were available to the petitioner. The court held that the legislative intent behind the provision was to protect the assessee and ensure timely action by the authorities. Based on the interpretation of the law and the specific facts of the case, the court allowed the writ petition, ordering the Department to return the books of account and quashing the Commissioner's approval for retention. The court granted a 15-day period for the return of the books and declined to issue a certificate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court, deeming the legal provision clear and unambiguous.
|
