9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kanga and Co., for the appellant. A. S. Rao with P. S. Sahadevan for the respondents. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by R. S. Mohite J. - 1. This Writ petition is filed by Kishore Jagjivandas Tanna (hereinafter referred to as the "petitioner") impugning an order dated 22 nd December 1987 passed by the respondent no.2 under Section 132(5) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (as it then stood). 2. The brief relevant facts of the case were as under :- (a) In pursuance of authorisation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act issued by the Deputy Director of Inspection (Inv.) Unit-I, New Delhi, a search was carried out on 25.8.1987 at room No.2214 at Maurya Sheraton Hotel, Delhi, which was then occupied by the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n handed over as an advance payment by them against the sale of rice. The petitioner requested for withdrawal of the notice. Ultimately, after few dates of hearing, the impugned order came to be passed by respondent no.2 on 22.12. 1987. (e) The first contention raised on behalf of the petitioner was that the 1 st respondent could have issued the warrant only when, in consequence of information in his possession, he had reason to believe that the petitioner was in possession of any cash. It was contended that the 1 st respondent has nothing to do with the assessment of the petitioner and he could have any reason to believe that the petitioner was in possession of such cash. In reply to this contention, Counsel appearing for the responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stood, indicates that the final order should be passed after affording a reasonable opportunity to the affected person of being heard. If statements recorded were to be made the basis for passing the final order, then in our view, copies thereof ought to have been given to the petitioner in order to afford him a reasonable opportunity to meet the allegations. This, not having been done, the impugned order will have to be quashed and set aside and the matter would have to be remanded to respondent no.2 for passing a proper order after complying the rules of natural justice. 4. In the circumstances, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause-(a) and respondent no.1 is directed to issue a fresh Show Cause Notice to the petitioner und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
