9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (3) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , filed by the respondents was allowed and the authorisation made by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 132A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), and the proceedings in consequence thereof were quashed. It was also directed that the action of the appellants in seizing the books and documents as well as the sum of ₹ 17,353 on December 30, 1981, was contrary to law and the same be returned to the respondents. On December 25, 1981, one Vinod Kumar Jaiswal, while he was travelling from Mirzapur to Calcutta by the Kalka Mail, was detained at Moghal Sarai Railway Station by the Government Railway Police and an attached case containing a sum of ₹ 4,63,000 was seized from him on the suspicion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent No. 1 on December 29, 1981, and found entered in the books of account that the aforesaid amount of ₹ 4,63,000 had been handed over to Vinod Kumar Jaiswal, who was the nephew of Santosh Kumar Gupta (Jaiswal), respondent No. 3, for being carried to Calcutta in connection with the business of the said firm. On December 30, 1981, the search party which searched the premises of respondent No. 1 carried away the sum of ₹ 17,353 found as total balance and the books of account. After completing the investigation, the railway police submitted the final report on January 21, 1982, wherein it was stated that the money found in the possession of Vinod Kumar Jaiswal did not represent stolen property or property acquired from any offenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income-tax, who had issued the warrant of authorisation. After examining the file containing the order passed by the Commissioner, the High Court has observed that the information on the basis of which the Commissioner had issued the warrant of authorisation was as follows : (a) a sum of ₹ 4,63,000 had been seized by the Government Railway Police from the possession of one Vinod Kumar Jaiswal, resident of Imamganj, Durga Devi, Mirzapur ; (b) at the time of the seizure by the Railway Police, no papers or documents in regard to the ownership or possession of the amount were in possession of Vinod Kumar Jaiswal, and (c) no person by the name of Vinod Kumar Jaiswal was borne on the General Index Register of income-tax assessees ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on relatable to a conclusion that it represented income which would not have been disclosed by Vinod Kumar Jaiswal for purposes of the Act. Mere unexplained possession of the amount, without anything more, could hardly be said to constitute information which could be treated as sufficient by a reasonable person, leading to an inference that it was income which would not have been disclosed by the person in possession for purposes of the Acts. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal and we have perused the impugned judgment of the High Court. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court. The appeal is, theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
