9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (11) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egistered partnership firm and at the relevant time was constituted by Vishwa Nath, Baikunth Nath, Mrs. Rama Rani and Mrs. Prem Lata, Manmohan Nath and Mrs. Sushila Devi. The firm was started with effect from 1st of April, 1957, with its head office at Meerut, in Uttar Pradesh, and was being assessed by the Income-tax Officer, Meerut, under G.I.R.No. 137-G. The sole business of the firm was to run the Imperial Flour Mills, Ambala City, which was being run between the period 1st of April, 1956, to the 31st of March, 1957, constituted by five partners except Mrs. Prem Lata, referred to above. This firm had its head office at Ambala and was being assessed by the Income-tax Officer, Ambala, under G.I.R. No. 133-B. The petitioner-firm ceased to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioners. It is this action of the respondents which has been challenged by way of this petition on various grounds stated in the petition. Written statement has been filed by Shri T. N. Sharma, Income-tax Officer, "B" Ward, Ambala, in which the material allegations made in the petition have been controverted. It was earnestly contended by Mr. Bhagirath Dass Seth, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the provisions of sub-section (8) of section 132 of the Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1965, were retrospective in effect and that before retaining the books of account beyond a period of 180 days from the date of seizure, it was obligatory on the authorised officer to record reasons in writing for doing so and obtain the approval of the Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with himself an unauthorised officer ; and (b) where no proceedings were pending against the assessee either under the 1922 Act or under the 1961 Act (as amended by the 1964 Act). The learned counsel also contended that the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Seth Brothers' case, did not lay down the correct law. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, I am of the view that there is considerable force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The short question that requires determination on the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties is whether, by virtue of section 6, the provisions of section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act of 1965 are retrospective in effect, and wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her documents seized under sub-section (1) shall not be retained by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner or the Income-tax 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 (XI of 1922), or this Act in respect of the years for which the books of account or other documents are relevant are completed." Again, Parliament enacted the Income-tax (Amendment) Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion (2) was added which provided that the account books or other documents seized under sub-section (1) shall not be retained by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner or the Income-tax Officer for a period exceeding 180 days from the date of the seizure unless reasons for retaining the same were recorded by him in writing and the approval of the Commissioner for such retention was obtained. However, at the time of enacting the Finance Act, 1964, searches and seizures made under the principal Act were not adverted to and dealt with. The result was that there was no time limit for retaining the documents or the account books seized under the principal Act while according to the terms of section 132(2) of the Finance Act, 1964, a definite peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n made in accordance with section 132(1) as now substituted. If I accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that section 6 had nothing to do with retrospectivity and that it was only a curing section and had been enacted in order to obviate two attacks against searches mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of that section, then the words "shall be deemed to have been made in accordance with the provisions of that sub-section as amended by this Act as if those provisions were in force on the day the search was made" would become redundant. Thus, viewed from any angle, I find no escape from the conclusion that the provisions of sub-section (8) of section 132 are applicable to the searches which were carried out under the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
