TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court protects citizen rights under Income-tax Act, quashes impounding order.</h1> <h3>Income-Tax Officer And Others Versus Raj And Raj Investments.</h3> Income-Tax Officer And Others Versus Raj And Raj Investments. - [2007] 293 ITR 66, 213 CTR 203, 165 TAXMANN 28 Issues:- Challenge to the quashing of authorisation and impounding order- Interpretation of Section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Jurisdiction of the officer issuing the authorisation- Validity of retaining authenticated copies of impounded documents- Compliance with procedural requirements for impounding documentsChallenge to the Quashing of Authorisation and Impounding Order:The appellants, income-tax authorities, challenged the order of a learned single judge quashing the authorisation and impounding order issued against the respondent. The appellants argued that the order should be set aside to prevent adverse effects on public interest. They contended that failure by the respondent to provide names and addresses of persons whose documents were impounded hindered further proceedings. The appellants relied on Section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and argued that any procedural irregularity could be cured under Section 292B of the Act.Interpretation of Section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The High Court examined Section 133A of the Income-tax Act, which empowers the Income-tax Officer to survey business premises and impound documents for further action. The Court emphasized the need for officers to exercise such powers while respecting the rights of citizens under the Act. The Court agreed with the learned single judge's decision to allow retention of authenticated copies of impounded documents.Jurisdiction of the Officer Issuing the Authorisation:The respondent argued that the officer who issued the authorisation lacked jurisdiction, rendering the action illegal and not merely irregular. Citing previous decisions, the respondent contended that such illegality could not be cured. The Court examined relevant documents and admissions by the appellants, ultimately supporting the respondent's argument regarding the lack of jurisdiction.Validity of Retaining Authenticated Copies of Impounded Documents:The Court acknowledged the respondent's argument that no reasons were provided for retaining the impounded documents. Citing a decision from the Allahabad High Court, the Court emphasized the importance of complying with statutory requirements, highlighting the consequences of non-compliance. The Court agreed with the learned single judge's decision to allow retention of authenticated copies.Compliance with Procedural Requirements for Impounding Documents:In addressing concerns raised by the Department regarding the potential impact on public interest and the effective functioning of officers without original documents, the Court provided further clarifications and directions. The respondent was instructed to provide details of persons whose documents were impounded, and the appellants were directed to return original documents upon receiving the necessary information. Specific conditions were outlined for the return and handling of original documents to ensure compliance with procedural requirements.In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the writ appeal by issuing clarifications and directions to address the concerns raised by the Department while upholding the decision to allow retention of authenticated copies of impounded documents.
TaxTMI 