9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the search two keys of the locker No. 290 of the Corporation Bank, Vivek Vihar, Delhi, and locker No. 895 of the Central Bank of India, Savita Vihar, Delhi, were taken in possession by the Income-tax Department. On February 6, 2002, the petitioners received notices under section 158BC of the Income-tax Act directing the petitioners to file a return for the period April 1, 1990, to November 21, 2000. The petitioners have prayed that the respondents be directed not to proceed in any manner against the petitioners in pursuance of the illegal searches and declare the searches as illegal. The petitioners have also prayed that the respondents' directions to them to file the return for the block period April 1, 1990, to November 21, 2000, in pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the valuation report (of jewellery) and a copy of challan showing payment of taxes; copies of wealth-tax return filed, if any. 4. Details of sale/exchange/alteration of any jewellery referred to in the above point along with supporting bills. The petitioners were asked to submit replies by November 27, 2000. They failed to give details of the contents of the lockers. Therefore, after giving requisite notice the lockers were opened by the respondents in the presence of the petitioners and after making an inventory, the ornaments, jewellery and other articles were handed over to the petitioners. The petitioners mentioned that they have nothing to do with Vinod Kumar Bindal though he is the brother of Anil Kumar Bindal and living in the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the respondents to produce the record pursuant to which they conducted the search under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on November 21, 2000, at the premises of the petitioners, i.e., Flat No. 1, Ground Floor B-2, Vivek Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi, on December 18, 2000, at 11.30 a.m., at locker No. 895 with the Central Bank of India, Savita Vihar, Delhi, and pursuant to same centralising of cases of the petitioner with Sunair Hotels Ltd. and on examining quash the same. (b) a writ of mandamus or any other writ/order/directions directing the respondents not to proceed in any manner against the petitioners pursuant to the illegal searches and declare the said searches as illegal. (c) grant the petitioners further or other relief as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted to the petitioners to file another petition. In our considered opinion, the petitioners cannot be permitted to reagitate the issues raised in the earlier petition. Learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Sanjiv Khanna, submitted that according to the provisions of section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, after the search is conducted under section 132 or books of account, other documents or assets are requisitioned under section 132A, then block assessment follows. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents have committed illegality in proposing to have block assessment under section 158BC: Section 158BC of the Act reads as under: "158BC. Where any search has been conducted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; (c) the Assessing Officer, on determination of the undisclosed income of the block period in accordance with this Chapter, shall pass an order of assessment and determine the tax payable by him on the basis of such assessment; (d) the assets seized under section 132 or requisitioned under section 132A shall be retained to the extent necessary and the provisions of section 132B shall apply subject to such modifications as may be necessary and the references to 'regular assessment' or 'reassessment' in section 132B shall be construed as references to 'block assessment'." Mr. Khanna, counsel appearing for the Revenue, maintained that in all cases where search has been conducted under section 132 or books of account, other documents or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SC): "We are of the view that the principle underlying rule 1 of Order 23 of the Code should be extended in the interests of administration of justice to cases of withdrawal of writ petition also, not on the ground of res judicata but on the ground of public policy as explained above. It would also discourage the litigant from indulging in bench-hunting tactics. In any event there is no justifiable reason in such a case to permit a petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution once again. While the withdrawal of a writ petition filed in the High Court without permission to file a fresh writ petition may not bar other remedies like a suit or a petition under article 32 of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
