9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (11) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 carry on the business after 31st of March, 1965, and up to March 31, 1965, all the returns were filed from the 1st of April, 1957, to the end of the assessment year 1965-66. It is further averred that on 7th of June, 1963, the Income-tax Officer, "C" Ward, Ambala, the Income-tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle, Ambala, the Income-tax Officer, "A" Ward, Ambala, and the Income-tax Officer, Ambala, visited the Imperial Flour Mills, Ambala, under the directions of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab, Himachal Prade ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority merely on the ground- (i) that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner or the Income-tax Officer made such search with the assistance of any other person; or (ii) that no proceeding under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or the principal Act was pending against the person concerned when the search was authorised under the said sub-section." The learned counsel also sought support from a Division Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Seth Brothers v. Commissioner of Income-tax. On the other hand, it was contended by Mr. D. N. Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondents, that section 6 had nothing to do with retrospectivity, that it was only a curing section and that it had been enacted in order to obviate two attacks against searches in which: (a) the authorised officer had associated 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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, 1965 (Act No. 1 of 1965) (hereinafter referred to as "the Income-tax Act 1965"), with effect from April 12, 1965, which replaced section 132 by a more detailed provision. Sub-section (8) with which we are concerned reads as under: " 132. (8) The books of account or other documents seized under sub-section (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 (XI of 1922), or this Act in respect of the years for which the books of account or other documents are relevant are completed." Under section 132(1) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on (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 this Act, as if those provisions were in force on the day the search was made. The true effect and scope of section 6 seems to be that a search made under section 132(1) of the principal Act is to be deemed to have been 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 provisions of the principal Act and that the Income-ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
