9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Challenge of search and seizure, validity of order under section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act.
Analysis: The petitioner, a practicing advocate, challenged the search and seizure conducted by income-tax officials at his premises. The search resulted in the recovery and seizure of various articles, including jewelry. The petitioner contended that the search was unauthorized as there was no valid information with the Commissioner of Income-tax to justify it. The petitioner also raised concerns about the lack of application of mind by the Authorized Officer during the seizure. Reference was made to a previous judgment highlighting the necessity of proper grounds for initiating a search under section 132 of the Act. The court emphasized the importance of the Commissioner of Income-tax recording reasons before authorizing a search and the duty of the Authorized Officer to independently assess the situation before seizing assets. The court ruled that a seizure made at the intervention of an outside agency was not legally valid, and without a valid seizure, action under section 132(5) of the Act could not be taken against the assessee. The court compared the petitioner's case with a previous judgment involving another individual and found that the material on which the search was based did not justify the action taken. It was noted that the Commissioner of Income-tax had essentially delegated his functions to a subordinate officer, rendering the authorization for the search illegal. The court also highlighted a note expressing concern about the petitioner's lack of wealth and jewelry, indicating an improper motive behind the search. The court emphasized that inquisitorial searches into an individual's wealth status were not justified under the law. Furthermore, the petitioner presented evidence of consistently providing accurate statements of accounts, which had been accepted by assessing authorities in the past. The court noted discrepancies in the Commissioner's assessment of the petitioner's financial situation, indicating a lack of proper consideration before initiating the search. The court concluded that the search of the petitioner's premises was illegal due to the lack of valid grounds and the failure to apply proper judgment. The seizure of jewelry under telephonic instructions was deemed illegal, leading to the quashing of the order under section 132(5) of the Act. The court ordered the return of seized articles to the petitioner and allowed the petition with costs assessed at Rs. 200. In a concurring opinion, the Chief Justice agreed with the findings and decision of the court regarding the illegality of the search and seizure, as well as the invalidity of the order under section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act.
|
