9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (12) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are necessary for the disposal of this petition. The petitioner is a partner of a partnership firm carrying on business under the name and style of " Pandit Debi Prasad Prayag Dutt " with its head office at Calcutta and branches at several places in India. The petitioner is in charge of the business carried on by the said firm through its Hyderabad Branch. The petitioner firm is an assessee at Calcutta. On November 30, 1981, under an authorisation issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh II, under s. 132(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act "), the officers of the Income-tax Department entered the premises of the State Bank of India, Baradari Branch, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as " the Bank "), with a warrant of search. The authorised officers inspected the safe room of the Bank and found a sealed brown paper packet with a white label pasted thereon with the following note " Safe deposit article deposited by P. S. Prasad (Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Chandulal Baradari, Hyderabad, House No. 56, State Bank of India Staff Colony, New Bakaram, Hyderabad ". During the course of the search, the authorised officer elicited from Sr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al and without jurisdiction. It is contended that the pre-conditions for issuing an authorisation under s. 132(1) were not satisfied and as such the warrant of search issued by the 1st respondent was illegal and without jurisdiction. Consequently, the seizure of the sum of Rs. 10,00,000 was illegal and liable to be quashed. It is also contended that the seizure of the amount could not have been effected from the bank when it was disclosed by the bank that the amount belonged to the petitioner. Without prejudice to the abovesaid contentions, it is urged that the seizure of this amount constitutes a breach of promise held out to the taxpayers by the Union of India, the 5th respondent herein, to invest their unaccounted money in Special Bearer Bonds, 1991, without suffering any consequences, under the " Special Bearer Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Ordinance, 1981 " promulgated on January 12, 1981, and, since replaced by the Special Bearer Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions Act, 1981 (Act No. 7 of 1981). As the Special Bearer Bonds are declared to be on sale from December 1, 1981, at the offices of the Reserve Bank of India at several places including Hyderabad and at all branches ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he purpose of the I.T. Act, then such authorised officer may, as laid down in s. 132(1), enter and search any building or place where he has reason to suspect that money or other valuable article or thing is kept. The contention of Mr. Y. V. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that when someone from the bank had informed the income-tax authorities that a packet of Rs. 10,00,000 is in the safe room of the 1st respondent-bank, such an information does not raise a mere suspicion but constitutes a definite information and, as such, no question of making search contemplated by s. 132(1) arises. On the basis of such information, the bank could be prohibited from disposing of the said packet or money. According to the learned counsel, the Commissioner, in such circumstances, has no authority to issue a warrant for the search of the safe room. We are unable to agree with this contention. Firstly, there is nothing on record to show that any definite information was given by any particular person. Even otherwise, any such information by itself cannot amount to proof of the existence of such money or valuable article or thing. It could raise only a suspicion warranting a sea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eizure. The petitioner is entitled to be heard under sub-s. (5) of s. 132 by the competent tax authorities that the amount seized is not liable to be forfeited or confiscated and that they are bound to release it. Even on the facts stated by the petitioner himself, this court cannot say that the seizure of the amount was wholly without jurisdiction or unwarranted in the circumstances of the case. It was next contended that the amount may not have been accounted for and was not disclosed to the tax authorities but as it was intended to be invested in Special Bearer Bonds, 1991, issued under the Ordinance, it was not liable to seizure. The Special Bearer Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Act (Act No. 7 of 1981) received the assent of the President on 27th March, 1981. It replaced the Ordinance issued earlier on 12th January, 1981. The validity of the Special Bearer Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Ordinance, 1981, as well as the Act was unsuccessfully questioned in a batch of writ petitions before the Supreme Court. Thereupon the sale of Special Bearer Bonds issued pursuant to the Ordinance and the Act was proposed to be resumed from 1st December, 1981, and carried on till 30th D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s relating to any offence or the imposition of any penalty under any such law." The notification for the sale of Bearer Bonds was issued on l5th January, 1981. The Bearer Bonds, which were offered for sale under the notification No. F. 4(1) W M/81, dated January 15, 1981, with effect from February 2, 1981, were on sale up to 30th April, 1981. They were withdrawn from sale with effect from 1st May, 1981, and were again offered for sale only with effect from December 1, 1981. This amount of Rs. 10,00,000 obviously was an amount acquired subsequent to 30th April, 1981. If it was acquired earlier, perhaps it would have been invested in the purchase of the Bearer Bonds when they were offered for sale between 2nd February, 1981, and 30th April, 1981. No immunity is given for any unaccounted money between May 1, 1981, and November 30, 1981, and it was liable to be seized. No provision of law has been brought to our notice which gave immunity from search and seizure of such amount. When no immunity is given in respect of any amount during the period, commencing from May 1, 1981, to November 30, 1981, the question of any promissory estoppel operating against the first respondent from s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
