2022 (2) TMI 230 - HC - Income Tax

Release of seized documents, books of accounts and various other documents which was seized during the search proceedings u/s 132 - document, books of accounts, etc., seized during search are necessary for the purpose of the proceedings and consequently, the question of returning the same to the petitioner at this stage does not arise - HELD THAT - As grievance of the petitioner with regard to non-return of the books of accounts, documents, etc., seized during search can be addressed by disposing of this petition by directing the petitioner to submit a representation in this regard to the respondents seeking return of the said documents and by directing the respondents to take necessary steps to return back the documents as requested by the petitioner by retaining true photostat copies of the same with the respondents for the purpose of the proceedings and also by directing the petitioner to file an affidavit of undertaking that he shall not take, change, alter or modify the documents so returned to him in any manner whatsoever and that he shall produce the same to the respondents as and when required by them.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeking the release of seized documents and books of accounts under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, quashing of a Memorandum, and prohibition on further actions by respondent authorities.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus or direction to release seized documents and books of accounts from a search conducted under section 132 of the Income Tax Act in 2009. They also requested the quashing of a Memorandum issued in 2020 and a prohibition on further actions by the authorities until the disposal of the petition. The petitioner's counsel argued that despite repeated representations for the return of the documents, the authorities extended the retention period, causing hindrance to the petitioner's business. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel contended that the seized documents were essential for ongoing proceedings, justifying their retention. The court, after considering the submissions, directed the petitioner to submit a representation seeking the return of the documents and instructed the authorities to return them after retaining true copies for proceedings. The petitioner was required to file an affidavit undertaking not to alter the returned documents and to produce them when necessary. The court disposed of the petition, allowing the petitioner to submit the representation for the return of seized documents within three weeks, emphasizing the importance of complying with the directives to facilitate the return process.

Conclusion:
The judgment addressed the petitioner's grievances regarding the non-return of seized documents, providing a practical solution by allowing the submission of a representation for their return while ensuring the authorities retain necessary copies for proceedings. The court's directions aimed to balance the petitioner's need for the documents with the requirements of ongoing proceedings, emphasizing the importance of cooperation and compliance to facilitate the return process effectively.