Court affirms removal was illegal, but seizure of promissory notes valid under Income-tax Act Rule 30.

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the single judge's decision. The removal of documents during the survey was deemed illegal, but the seizure of promissory notes by the Tax Recovery Officer was upheld as valid under Rule 30 of the Income-tax Act. The presence of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and the Tax Recovery Officer during the survey was considered authorized. The writ appeal was dismissed without costs, and the appellant's rights in the pending appeal before the authorities remained unaffected.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the removal of documents during a survey under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act.
2. Authority of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and the Tax Recovery Officer to be present during the survey.
3. Validity of the seizure of promissory notes during the survey.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the removal of documents during a survey under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act:
The appellant contended that the removal of documents, particularly promissory notes, during the survey was illegal under Section 133A(4) of the Income-tax Act, which prohibits the removal of any cash, books of account, or other documents from the place of business during a survey. The court noted that Section 133A allows income-tax authorities to conduct surveys only during business hours and prohibits the removal of documents or other valuable items from the premises. The learned single judge held that while income-tax authorities can inspect and mark documents during a survey, they cannot seize or impound them. Consequently, the removal of documents during the survey was deemed illegal, and the authorities were directed to return the impounded documents, excluding the promissory notes.

2. Authority of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and the Tax Recovery Officer to be present during the survey:
The appellant argued that the presence of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and the Tax Recovery Officer during the survey was unauthorized. However, the respondents countered that these officials were vested with the necessary powers under the Income-tax Act. The court observed that the Tax Recovery Officer is an income-tax authority under the Act and has jurisdiction over the appellant's business premises. The survey was authorized by the second respondent, the Assessing Officer, and was conducted within the statutory limits. Therefore, the presence of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and the Tax Recovery Officer during the survey was deemed valid and justified.

3. Validity of the seizure of promissory notes during the survey:
The appellant contended that the promissory notes are documents protected under Section 133A(4) and should be returned. The respondents argued that the promissory notes were seized by the Tax Recovery Officer under Rule 30 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, which allows the attachment of negotiable instruments for tax recovery. The court noted that the promissory notes were attached by the Tax Recovery Officer pursuant to a certificate for recovery of taxes due from the appellant. Rule 30 provides that negotiable instruments not deposited in a court or public custody can be attached by actual seizure. The court held that the seizure of the promissory notes was valid and could not be interfered with, as it was done within the powers vested in the Tax Recovery Officer under the Act.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, confirming the findings of the learned single judge. The removal of documents during the survey was illegal, but the seizure of promissory notes by the Tax Recovery Officer was valid under Rule 30 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act. The presence of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and the Tax Recovery Officer during the survey was also deemed authorized and justified. The writ appeal was dismissed with no costs, and the appellant's rights in the pending appeal before the authorities were unaffected by this judgment.

---