9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (12) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court did not agree with the view taken by this court. It observed that the allegations of the petitioners had been denied by the income-tax authorities, and if this court was of the view that an investigation should be made it should have directed evidence to be taken viva voce. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and remanded the cases to this court for the decision of the question which remained undecided. The cases have now come before us on remand. A number of applications have been made by the petitioners praying that permission be granted to produce certain witnesses and also praying that the deponents of the counter-affidavit filed in these petitions earlier should be summoned for cross-examination. While considering these applications, the question was raised whether the income-tax department could retain the account books and other documents any longer having regard to the provisions of section 132(8) of the Act. Learned counsel for the income-tax department was given time to ascertain what was the position in this regard, and affidavits have been filed before us in the matter by the parties. We, accordingly, proceed to consider wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed officers. Sub-section (8) of the section provided : " (8). The books of account or other documents seized under subsection (1) shall not be retained by the authorised officer for a period exceeding one hundred and eighty days from the date of the seizure unless the reasons for retaining the same are recorded by him in writing and the approval of the Commissioner for such retention is obtained : Provided that the Commissioner shall not authorise the retention of the books of account and other documents for a period exceeding thirty days after all the proceedings under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or this Act in respect of the years for which the books of account or other documents are relevant are completed." Section 6 of the Amendment Act, 1965, which appears to us relevant, declared : " 6. Validation of certain searches made.--Any search of a building or place by an Inspecting Assistant Commissioner or Income-tax Officer purported to have been made in pursuance of sub-section (1) of section 132 of the Principal Act before the commencement of this Act shall be deemed to have been made in accordance with the provisions of that sub-section as amended by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accordingly, the searches made in June, 1963, must now be deemed to have been made in accordance with the new section 132(l) as brought in by the Amendment Act, 1965. The search must be treated as if that provision was in force on the date when the search was made If the search is to be deemed to be a search made under the said section 132(1), then clearly section 132(8) in terms will come into play. The operation of the legal fiction makes it a search under the said section 132(l) for all purposes, and section 132(8) specifically deals with such searches. It is contended on behalf of the income-tax department that section 132(8) of the Act, as amended in 1965, cannot be invoked. It is urged that section 132(8) is not retrospective and, therefore, will not apply to a search made in June, 1963. In our opinion, it is not necessary that section 132(8) should operate retrospectively in order to cover the account books and documents in question before us. Section 132(8) is concerned with the present retention of account books and documents, and it is immaterial that those articles were seized in a search made before section 132(8) came into force. The date of search is relevant in so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owed by this court. Then, on March 31, 1964, a petition was filed in the Supreme Court for special leave to appeal against the judgment and order of this court, and the, Supreme Court stayed the operation of the order directing delivery of the seized documents to the petitioners. On April 17, 1964, the Supreme Court made an interim order that the sealed documents should be kept in the custody of the Supreme Court, and on May 9, 1964, effect was given to the order by the Income-tax Officer when he deposited the document in the Supreme Court. The appeal in the Supreme Court was disposed of on July 15, 1969, and, as we have already said, the case were remanded to this court. On August 1, 1969, upon application made by the petitioners, this court made an ex parte interim order directing the Income-tax Officer " not to open the trunks containing the documents in question and not to examine them ". The application was finally heard on March 18, 1970, and the following order was made : " We have beard learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, it is in the interest of just that none of the parties to these petitions should have access to the documents contained in the seated steel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... take back the documents. It was open to him to obtain the approval of the Commissioner, and for the Commissioner to grant such approval, extending the period for retaining the account books and documents. While cases were pending in this court on remand, this court made an order dated August 1, 1969, restraining the Income-tax Officer from opening the trunks containing the documents and from examining them. That order could have been made only on the basis that it was within the power of the Income-tax Officer to open the trunks and examine the documents. There was nothing in that order requiring that the trunks should remain in the custody of the Supreme Court. Then on March 18, 1970, this court made the further order that the parties should not have access to the documents contained in the sealed steel trunks "presently in the custody of the Supreme Court ". There was no injunction here against the Income-tax Officer taking the steel trunks back from the custody of the Supreme Court. The injunction extended only to the parties having access to the documents contained in those trunks. The phrase " presently in the custody of the Supreme Court " was employed only for the purposes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
