9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (1) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been brought on record as respondents Nos. 1 to 6 (accused). The raid was conducted on the basis of the First Information Report No. 242, dated September 5, 1977, under section 411, Indian Penal Code. This First Information Report was got registered by the Assistant Sub-Inspector, Sheonath, at Police Station, Bahadurgarh, on the allegation that Balbir Singh, the petitioner, in the present case and two others had amassed wealth by organising thefts at far away places and they were habitual receivers of stolen property. On the search having been conducted on September 6, 1977, police recovered currency notes of the value of Rs. 2,99,000 from the house of Balbir Singh. The police took into possession this money and this money was produced be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak. The petitioner consequently filed the present Writ Petition No. 3583 of 1977 (see [1984] 146 ITR 266), in this court seeking the relief of quashing the directions issued by the income-tax authorities under section 132A of the Income-tax Act. The writ petition came up for hearing before the learned single judge who has allowed the writ petition and quashed the requisition issued by the income-tax authorities. It is against this decision dated December 20, 1983 (see [1984] 146 ITR 266), that the present letters patent appeal has been filed by the Income-tax Department. Learned senior standing counsel for the Income-tax Department has urged that the view taken by the learned single judge that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eferred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c), as the case may be, of that sub-section shall deliver the books of account, other documents or assets to the requisitioning officer either forthwith or when such officer or authority is of the opinion that it is no longer necessary to retain the same in his or its custody. . . . " Section 132A quoted above provides that where the Director of Inspection or the Commissioner, in consequence of information in his possession, has reason to believe that any assets represent either wholly or partly income or property which has not been or would not have been disclosed for the purposes of the Act by any person from whose possession or control such assets have been taken into custody by any off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not done so. It is, therefore, clear that the requisition which was issued to court could not have been issued by the Income-tax Officer under section 132A of the Act in respect of the assets which are in the custody of the court. In the circumstances, we agree with the view of the learned single judge that the Income-tax Officer has no jurisdiction whatsoever to issue any requisition under section 132A of the Act. In the instant case, the requisition under section 132A of the Income-tax Act was issued to the Treasury Officer. The money was in the hands of the Treasury Officer under the directions of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak. The Income-tax Officer could not take advantage of the proviso to section 132A of the Act by issuing a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
