1968 (3) TMI 13 - HC - Income Tax

Order made by the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate making over certain documents seized by the police, to the Income-tax Officer - Since Order XIII, rule 10, confers such power on the civil court to call for documents from other courts, the ITO too has such powers u/s 131(1) of the Act

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate to make over seized documents to the Income-tax Officer.
2. Powers of the Income-tax Officer under section 131(1) of the Income-tax Act.

Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate:
The case involved the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate making an order to transfer seized documents to the Income-tax Officer for examination in connection with assessment proceedings. The petitioner argued that the documents were not part of the case record and thus the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to transfer them. However, the court found that the Magistrate treated the seized documents as part of the case based on the petitioner's complaint, subsequent orders, and reports from the police. The court concluded that the Magistrate had jurisdiction to make over the documents to the Income-tax Officer in compliance with the requisition under section 131(1) of the Income-tax Act.

2. Powers of the Income-tax Officer under section 131(1) of the Income-tax Act:
The petitioner contended that the Income-tax Officer did not have the power under Order XIII, rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to request the seized documents. The court disagreed, stating that Section 131(1) of the Income-tax Act grants the Income-tax Officer powers similar to those of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, including compelling the production of books of account and other documents. The court referred to previous judgments and held that the Income-tax Officer indeed had the power under Order XIII, rule 10 of the Code.

In conclusion, the court discharged the rule and directed the seized documents to be made over to the Income-tax Officer, emphasizing the need for expeditious handling of the case. The prayer for a stay order was rejected, and both judges, R. N. Dutt and K. K. Mitra, concurred with the decision.