9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 732X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve elapsed. Different bank accounts of the petitioner were also attached though there was no legal demand for payment of any outstanding tax. 3.. In the affidavit-in-opposition, it is admitted that books of accounts of the petitioner were seized on September 27, 2001 and since then the petitioner was directed to appear before respondent No. 1 to explain those documents, but she failed. The proceedings had to be adjourned on nine occasions due to absence of the petitioner. The notices issued asking his appearance also came back unserved with the postal remark "left". Therefore, to secure the amounts of tax which the petitioner had escaped suppressing transactions, the bank accounts of the petitioner were attached. The accounts maintained b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order of attachment should immediately be vacated and direction also should be given for release of the books of accounts. 6.. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the petitioner never appeared before the concerned officer as directed as such delay was caused to complete hearing of the proceeding. After obtaining necessary permission, from the learned Commissioner/ learned Additional Commissioner, the books of accounts were retained legally. The attachments for the bank accounts though were made but released subsequently on an undertaking given by the petitioner that she would co-operate with the respondents to complete the hearing. All the relevant orders were communicated but the petitioner intentionally avoided to accep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in writing from the Commissioner. 9.. Identical issue regarding retention of the documents exceeding the period for one year came for adjudication before this Tribunal in a case J.D. Casting and Forging (Private) Limited v. Prodyot Roy Chaudhury, Inspector of Commercial Taxes [1992] 87 STC 474 (WBTT) and three-Member Bench including Chairman held, "Retention of the seized books of accounts and documents beyond the prescribed period of one year, without proper sanction and communication of such sanction to the applicants, is improper and unauthorised. Failure to communicate the reasons in writing for obtaining sanction for retention will vitiate the sanction order". 10.. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Oriental Rubber Works ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d under section 66 must be communicated to the dealer. Non-communication of such reason would vitiate the sanction order." 12.. In view of the ratio of decisions of the Supreme Court, High Court and this Tribunal, retention of books of accounts shall be legal and valid provided (a) sanction in writing must have been obtained from the Commissioner or Additional Commissioner by the concerned officer to whom power to seize documents was delegated and (b) the reasons stated in writing for obtaining sanction must be communicated. The question as to whether the communication made shortly after expiry of the period of one year if would be treated as a valid communication so as to protect the retention order was further decided by this Tribunal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
