9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 989X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rincipal Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Rajasthan was placed before the Director of Joint Income Tax Office, Rajasthan who has considered and scrutinized satisfaction minutely. All the authorities offered their own comments and thereafter authorization be issued. We find that necessary care has been taken and the case properly scrutinized before issuance of the authorization. It is not a case of either hurriedly or perfunctorily issuing search authorization. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned authorization / search and seizer proceedings under Section 132 of the Act as well as impounding document etc. under Section 133 A(3)(ia) of the Act. Merely because, in the past for earlier transaction, the department might have given clean chit, there does not mean that on fresh cause of action and / or fresh material and / or evidence, search and seizer cannot be undertaken. - Decided against the assessee. - R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10449 of 2018 With CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1 of 2018 With CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 8-8-2018 - MR. M.R. SHAH AND MR. A.Y. KOGJE, JJ. For The Petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kamal Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that as such there is no reasons whatsoever to conduct search and seizer. It is submitted that in the year 2010 on the similar allegation earlier the search and seizer took place, however, thereafter nothing illegal was found against the petitioner and thereafter the assessment proceedings were culminated in favour of the petitioner. It is submitted that therefore, now again to conduct search and seizer on the similar set of facts and circumstances be violating the fundamental rights of the petitioner and same shall be undue harassment to the petitioner. It is submitted that therefore, again and again the petitioner society is not required to face the music. 3.2. It is further submitted by Shri Kamal Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner society is carrying on its activity and / or permitted to carry on its activities in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the order passed by the Rajasthan High Court order dated 14.5.2015 in DB Civil Writ (PIL) No. 26 of 2013. It is submitted that the petitioner society is running its affairs absolutely in consonanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... easons to believe. In support of her above submissions, she has heavily relied upon the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.K. Jewellers and Another vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2017) 398 ITR 116(SC). It is further submitted by Ms. Bhatt, learned counsel for the revenue that even in the case of Spacewood Furnishers Private Limited and Ors (supra) in para 8.5, the reasons need not be communicated to the person against whom the warrant is issued. It is submitted that in the aforesaid decision, it is observed in para 8.6 that such reasons however may have to be placed before the Court in the event of a challenge to formation of the belief of the authorised official in which event the Court (exercising jurisdiction under Article 226) would be entitled to examine the relevance of the reasons for the formation of the belief though not the sufficiency or adequacy thereof. It is submitted therefore, the respondent has placed before the Court for its perusal the satisfaction note / formation of the belief. Making above submissions and relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dipin G Patel vs. Director Genera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ul Modi or Shri Mukesh Modi. It is submitted that in this process, the petitioner has been evading payment of taxes by claiming substantial deductions under the provisions of Section 80 P of the Act. It is submitted that therefore, after satisfied and reasons to believe the authorization has been issued after recording reasons in the satisfaction note. Making above submissions and relying upon above decisions, it is requested to dismiss the present petition. 6.0. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the petitioner has challenged the authorization and impugned search and seizer proceedings under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act on the ground stated herein above. 6.1. The main contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the impugned authorization and search and seizer proceedings is illegal and violative of fundamental rights of the petitioner and that it is nothing but to point out that even in the year 2010 on the same ground and facts and circumstances search and seizer proceedings have been initiated and nothing illegal was found thereafter and a clean chit was given. It is also the case on b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led to examine the relevance of the reasons for the formation of the belief though not the sufficiency or adequacy thereof. 6.3 In the recent decision in the case of of N.K. Jewellers and Another (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 7 while confirming the authorization and not accepted the similar submission that the search person has not been given reasons, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: Further, we find that in view of the amendment made in Section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Finance Act of 2017, the 'reason to believe' or 'reason to suspect', as the case may be, shall not be disclosed to any person or any authority or the Appellate Tribunal as recorded by Income Tax Authority under Section 132 or Section 132A. We, therefore, cannot go into that question at all. Even otherwise, we find that the explanation given by the appellant regarding the amount of cash of ₹ 30 lacs found by the GRP and seized by the authorities has been disbelieved and has been treated as income not recorded in the Books of Account maintained by it. 6.4. Even considering the explanation to Section 132 of the Income Tax Act inserted b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts the authorizing officer to issue authorization of search if he has reason to believe. 7.2. We further find that satisfaction note place by the Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Rajasthan was placed before the Director of Joint Income Tax Office, Rajasthan who has considered and scrutinized satisfaction minutely. All the authorities offered their own comments and thereafter authorization be issued. We find that necessary care has been taken and the case properly scrutinized before issuance of the authorization. It is not a case of either hurriedly or perfunctorily issuing search authorization. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned authorization / search and seizer proceedings under Section 132 of the Act as well as impounding document etc. under Section 133 A(3)(ia) of the Act. 7.3. The impugned order dated 19.06.2018 passed by the respondent no.4 under Section 133 A(3)(ia) of the Act is also absolutely in consonance with the provisions of Section 133A(3) (ia) of the Act. Now, so far as submission on behalf of the petitioner that respondent authorities are permitting the petitioner to get xerox ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
