9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (9) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 40,000 was seized from out of it. Out of the 1,926 grams of old jewellery, 800 grams were seized. A number of silver articles weighing 14,772 grams were also found but they were, however, not seized. To finalise the order under section 132(5), a notice under rule 112A was issued on December 10, 1984. Thereupon, the assessee filed his reply on December 26, 1984. A further opportunity was given to the petitioner. The circumstances under which time came to be given need not be dilated. The assessee filed yet another reply on April 25, 1985. His explanation was gone through and ultimately by the impugned order, the Income-tax Officer, City Circle I(2), finalised the order as follows: " A sum of Rs. 15,000 mentioned in the Hindu undivided f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner, presses for the issuance of a writ is that there has not been a proper approval by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner as required under section 132(5) of the Act. According to him, the records which are produced before the court have been got up for the purpose of the case, after coming to know of the writ petition. The file does not contain any seal nor was it properly despatched and delivered by the officer concerned. It is rather strange that the very draft order refers to certain account books which are still retained for the purpose of investigation with the Additional Director of Investigation, Madras. Therefore, if the books were really in Madras, the officer who is supposed to put up the draft might have never perused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the person concerned of being heard and making such enquiry as may be prescribed, shall, within ninety days of the seizure, make an order, with the previous approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner." Though originally ninety days was prescribed, now it has been amended with effect from October 1, 1984, as one hundred and twenty days. The concluding portion of the above sub-section requires the Income-tax Officer to make an order, within one hundred and twenty days, with the previous approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. Therefore, as and when the Income-tax Officer proposes to make an order, he is to obtain the previous approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. It does not say, " after reciting the same in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ), (ii), (iia) and (iii) of section 132(5). This is exactly the position here. Because the above note of May 22, 1985, shows that the approving authority perused the draft order and the reasons contained therein, it can be taken that it is enough compliance of law. Even otherwise, whether an order under section 132(5) has been properly made on merits, has nothing to do with the writ petition. Nor can that be canvassed before me under article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially when the petitioner has a right of appeal under the Act. For all these reasons, I hold that the challenge of the procedural formality in the writ petition is unfounded. The writ petition is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 500. - - TaxTMI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
