9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e disposal of the appeal by this Court. Thereafter, no proceedings under this Act are in existence. On the contrary, the special leave petition having been filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India cannot be regarded as a proceeding under this Act. As a taxing statute, strict interpretation is to be adopted and that being so, recourse by the assessee to the provisions of the Constitution by filing a special leave petition before the Supreme Court cannot be regarded as 'a proceeding under this Act'. The statutory authority lost its power to grant further authorisation to retain the documents. Therefore, even on this count, the respondents are not authorised or justified in retaining the documents of title seized by them under section 132 of the Act. Petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition. Accordingly, while quashing Ext.P13 proceedings issued by the first respondent, this Court directs the first and second respondents to return to the petitioner the originals of document all executed before the Sub-Registrar's Office, Ernakulam, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Information Act, 2005, in which a reply was given that the documents are retained due to proceedings pending before the Supreme Court. Since petitioner could not obtain release of the title deeds, this writ petition was preferred seeking a direction to release/return the originals of the seized documents or to compel the respondents to take a decision on the representations filed by the petitioner seeking release of the documents. 4. A statement was filed by the respondents contending that as per the provisions of section 132(8) of the Act, the documents seized by the Department can be retained beyond 30 days, if the reasons for retaining the documents are recorded by the assessing officer and the same is approved by the Principal Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner or other officers mentioned in the said provision. It was further pleaded that as per order dated 26-02-2021, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax had accorded permission to retain the seized material till 28-02-2022 and that the special leave petition preferred by the petitioner is still pending before the Supreme Court and hence the assessment proceedings had not become final. 5. After the statement wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed as Ext.P13 is issued 17 years after the date prescribed under section 132(8) of the Act and the authenticity of the document is doubted due to the absence of the document identification number (DIN), which is mandatory as per Ext.P10 Circular dated 14-08-2019. The learned counsel further contended that the seized documents were never utilised or even referred to in the block assessment proceedings and indicating that the said documents were not required for the department to pursue any further proceedings against the assessee. She relied upon the decision in Joshi P. Mathew v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ernakulam and Another (2013 (1) KHC 288). 10. Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents contended that approval for detention of documents was granted by the authorised officer and hence the contention to the contrary had no basis. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that, though proceedings under the Act had already been completed, since the assessee had preferred Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, the respondents were justified in authorising the retention of documents. 11. While appreciating the rival contentions, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b-section. 15. However except for a statement that as per the impugned order dated 26-02-2021, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Kochi had approved the continued retention of the books of account and other documents impounded/seized up to 28-02-2022, and further that on earlier occasions, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Kochi approved the continued retention of books of account and other documents from time to time, nothing is produced to substantiate that orders were issued permitting continued retention. Though details of earlier orders passed under section 132(8) were mentioned in a tabular column as below, the same does not satisfy the requirment of strict adherence to the statutory prescriptions. The tabular column provided was as follows: Item No. Order u/s. Dated Retention upto 1 132(8) 31-03-2017 28-02-2018 2 132(8) 26-02-2018 28-02-2018 3 132(8) 27-02-2017 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f this Court. Except for vague averments, that too, in the form of a statement instead of an affidavit, that orders were communicated to the assessee, nothing has been produced to convincingly prove that the orders for retention were communicated to the petitioner. In such a view of the matter, retention of documents beyond 30 days of the order of assessment is illegal. 20. Even otherwise, the statute confers authority to grant authorisation for retaining the documents beyond the order of assessment only till the proceedings under the Act is completed. The word proceedings under this Act is a clear indication that the power of the officers empowered to grant authorisation is available only till the statutory proceedings are completed. Once the statutory proceedings are completed, the authorities under the statute are denuded of the power to grant further authorisation. 21. The word proceeding is a term of wide importance and it includes the original proceedings as well as the appellate proceedings as it is trite law that an appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings (see the decision in State of Tamil Nadu and Others v. S. Subramaniam [(1996) 7 SCC 509]. In the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
