9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 517X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est was made by the Income Tax Officer (Investigation), Indore to the Police Station In-charge of Chandan Nagar Police Station that the department has stated angrily with regard to the sources of seized amount and the same should not be released to any one until enquiry by the Income Tax Department is completed. A sum of Rs. 26,00,000/- was seized from the custody of petitioner No.2, whose statement was recorded on 10.06.2007 itself under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the IT Act). This petition relates to the authorization issued in respect of the said amount. Warrant of authorization was issued on 11.06.2007, which has been challenged in the present writ petition on the ground that the authority had no information in his possession to enable him to form a reason to believe that money seized from petitioner No.2 has not been or would not have been disclosed for the purposes of the IT Act. 3. Petitioner No. 1 is M/s. Patel Rajesh Kumar Amrutlal & Company, a partnership firm duly constituted under the deed of partnership dated 02.12.2006 (Annexure P/1), whereas petitioner No. 2 is Amish Kumar Patel from whose possession the amount in question wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reason to believe that money has not been or would not have been disclosed for the purpose of the IT Act. 4. Respondents submitted the reply, refuting thereby the averments contained in the petition. Accordingly, it has been stated that the powers to issue warrant of authorization has been properly and rightly exercised and the same is valid. 5. Shri P.M. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri R.L. Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the revenue made their respective submissions, which have been considered in the succeeding paragraphs. 6. Firstly, we feel it proper to reproduce Section 132A of the IT Act for convenience:- "132A. (1) Where the [Director General or Director] or the [Chief Commissioner or Commissioner], in consequence of information in his possession, has reason to believe that- (a) any person to whom a summons under sub-section (1) of section 37 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under sub-section (1) of section 131 of this Act, or a notice under sub-section (4) of section 22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or under sub-section (1) of section 142 of this Act was issued to produce, or cause to be produce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the requisitioning officer, the provisions of sub-sections (4A) to (14) (both inclusive) of section 132 and section 132B shall, so far as may be, apply as if such books of account, other documents or assets had been seized under sub-section (1) of section 132 by the requisitioning . officer from the custody of the person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c), as the case may be, of sub-section (1) of this section and as if for the words "the authorised officer" occurring in any of the aforesaid sub-sections (4A) to (14), the words "the requisitioning officer" were substituted.]" 7. Constitutional validity of Section 132A of the IT Act has already been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India long back in the case of Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (Investigation) IT AIR 1974 SC 348. IT has been observed:- "17. We are not, therefore, inclined to hold that the restrictions placed by any of the provisions of Section 132, 132A or Rule 112A are unreasonable restrictions on the freedoms under Article 19(1)(f) &(g)." 8. It is almost a settled law that in exercise of powers under writ jurisdiction, High Court has inherent powers to enter into question of existen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the said section is subjective. It is well to remember that jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India of this court is very limited. In fact this court cannot afford to act as an appellate or revisional court and as such has no justification to exarnine meticulously the information in order to decide for itself as to whether action under section 132A was called for or not. Suffice it to say that in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction this court can examine whether the act or issuance of an authorisation under section 132A is arbitrary or mala fide or whether the subjective satisfaction which is recorded is such that it indicates lack of application of mind of the appropriate authority. According to me the reason to believe must be based on definable material or materials and if the information or the reason to believe has no nexus with the belief or there is no definable material or tangible information for formation of such belief then in such a case action taken under section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, would be treated as illegal." 11. In the case of Jai Bhagwan Om Prakash v. Director of Inspection [1994] 208 ITR 424/[1993] 67 Taxman 33 (Punj. & Ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Superintendent of Police to the Income Tax Department. Record was produced by the Income Tax Department before us through Shri R.L. Jain, learned senior advocate appearing for the revenue, which contains the statement of Amish Kumar Patel recorded on oath under Section 131 of the IT Act. He stated that he was an employee at Ahmedabad office of M/s. Rajesh Bhai Amrutlal & Company, House No. 17, Ground Floor, Ratan Pol, Manak Chowk, Ahmedabad. He has been shifted to Branch Office at Indore. He further stated that the owner of the company is Mr. Praveen Bhai Darbar whose residence and telephone numbers were not known to him. Money in question was handed over to him in the evening of 09.06.2007 by Mr. Praveen Bhai for being delivered to Govind Bhai Patel at the Office of M/s. Rajesh Bhai Amrutlal & Company at Ahmedabad. He further stated that he had no document in relation to the money in question. Record shows that the department tried to trace out Praveen Bhai, who was not traceable at the given address at Jail Road, Indore. 16. On perusal of the averments of the writ petition, it is observed that in paragraph 4 of the writ petition at page 7, it is mentioned that petitioner No. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
