1972 (9) TMI 36 - HC - Income Tax

This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution arising out of a proceeding for search and seizure of the account books of the petitioner under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Whether the party subjected to search and seizure operation has a right to inspect the records and get copies - whether a search and seizure operation carried out when reason for ordering the operation was not recorded is valid

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the seizure of account books and documents.
2. Failure to record reasons before issuing search warrants.
3. Impounding and retention of documents by the Income-tax Officer.

Detailed Analysis:
The High Court of Allahabad addressed a petition under article 226 of the Constitution concerning the search and seizure of account books of a private limited company engaged in the transport business. The petitioner requested copies of search warrants, reasons for search authorization, and statements recorded during the search, which were denied by the Commissioner of Income-tax. The petitioner subsequently sought inspection of various documents related to the search and seizure proceedings, which was also refused by the Commissioner. The court criticized the Commissioner's refusal, emphasizing the importance of allowing individuals to inspect relevant documents to ensure the legality of actions taken under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court highlighted the fundamental right of a businessman to carry on business and the necessity for authorities to adhere to the law and principles of natural justice in exercising powers under sections 131 and 132.

Regarding the first contention raised by the petitioner, the court noted that the Commissioner failed to record any reasons before initiating action under section 132. While section 132 itself does not mandate the recording of reasons, Rule 12, framed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, requires the Commissioner to record reasons before issuing search warrants. The court held that any search and seizure conducted without complying with Rule 12 would be illegal, rendering the initial seizure of account books unlawful. As a result, the retention of the seized books beyond the permissible period was also deemed illegal, leading to the court's decision to allow the petition and direct the return of the seized books and documents to the petitioner.

Regarding the impounding and subsequent retention of documents by the Income-tax Officer, it was informed that the documents had been returned to the assessee. Consequently, the court did not delve further into the legality of the impounding and retention of those documents. The court's decision to allow the petition was primarily based on the illegality of the seizure of account books due to the Commissioner's failure to record reasons as required by Rule 12. As a result, the respondents were directed to promptly return the seized books and documents to the petitioner, who was also awarded costs for the proceedings.