Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1950 (5) TMI 41

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... On the 13th of December, 1949, two sets of books were produced before the Income-tax Officer. The first set was for the period Kartic Sambat 2000 up to the Chait Sambat 2001, corresponding with 29th October, 1943, up to the 1st of April, 1944, and the second set of books was for the period Chait 2001 up to Kartic 2001, corresponding with 2nd April, 1944, up to 17th October, 1944. The books were examined. The matter was subsequently adjourned. The matter came up before the Income-tax Officer again on the 15th December, 1949, and was again adjourned until the 16th December, 1949. On the later day, the books were again produced and examined and the matter was again adjourned. On the 20th December, 1949, the accountant of the petitioner, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... itioner wrote to the Income-tax Officer asking for return of the books and stating that he had no jurisdiction in the matter. Reply was given by the Income-tax Officer on the 23rd February, 1950, stating that the books were part of the records and they must be retained until assessment is completed and also until the appeal, if any, is disposed of, and if no appeal is filed, unitl the expiry of the period of appeal, and he also offered that the books could be inspected at the office of the Income-tax Officer if the petitioner wanted to do so. On the 24th February, 1950, Messrs. S. K. Sawday Co. wrote to the Income-tax Officer stating that the Income-tax Officer had no power to retain the books. Reply was given on the 8th March, 1950, b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ax Officer, the Income-tax Officer has stated that the books had been voluntarily left with him, that he had power to retain the books and, therefore, he retained them and gave directions accordingly. He denies that any undertaking was given. He also states that the books may be required for future prosecution. The books were produced before the Income-tax Officer because a notice under Section 23, sub-section (2), was issued upon the petitioner. Such notice calls upon the petitioner to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence upon which he relies in support of the return. Mr. Sen also relies upon Section 37 of the Income-tax Act under which the Income-tax Officer has for the purposes of Chapter IV the same powers as are vested .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e a receipt within the meaning of Section 7, sub-section (4), of the bill of sale asking the grant or to send by post the last quarters receipt for rent, but the receipt was not sent. It was held that there was no failure to produce the receipt. If the grantor was obliged to send the receipt by post he would be obliged to part with possession of the receipt. Power to call for production does not imply power to call upon the other party to part with possession of the document or thing called for. Mr. A. K. Sen also relied upon Section 37 of the Income-tax Act. It is to be observed that on summons or notice was issued under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act. Even if such summons or notice had been issued, still under that section, the Incom .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er Section 67 of the Indian Income-tax Act. But if he detained the books under the bona fide belief that he had power to do so under the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, the act of detention would be an act in good faith intended to be done by him under the Indian Income-tax Act. It appears that there is no reported case negativing the power of the Income-tax Officer to detain the books. On the whole and upon consideration of the entire evidence before me, I am of the opinion that the Income-tax Officer was acting bonafide and in fact intended to exercise power which he thought he had under the Act. He is, therefore, protected by virtue of Section 67 of the Indian Income-tax Act. However, after this pronouncement by me, if he sti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates