Court rules Income-tax Officer lacks jurisdiction to requisition court-held assets under section 132A.

The court held that the Income-tax Officer lacked jurisdiction to issue a requisition under section 132A of the Income-tax Act concerning assets in the custody of the court. The judgment emphasized that courts do not fall under the definition of "officer" or "authority" for such requisitions and rejected the argument based on the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act. The appeal was dismissed, with each party directed to bear their own costs.

---

---

Issues:
Jurisdiction of Income-tax Officer to issue requisition under section 132A of the Income-tax Act in respect of assets in custody of the court.

Detailed Analysis:

The case involved a letters patent appeal against a judgment where a raid conducted at a petitioner's house led to the recovery of currency notes, which were then deposited with the court. The petitioner sought the return of the money, but the Income-tax Department issued a requisition under section 132A of the Income-tax Act to prevent the release of the funds to the petitioner. The main issue was whether the Income-tax Officer had the jurisdiction to issue such a requisition in this scenario.

The court analyzed the relevant portion of section 132A of the Income-tax Act, which allows the Director of Inspection or the Commissioner to authorize officers to require assets to be delivered. The court noted that the requisition could only be issued to an "officer" or "authority," and in this case, the assets were in the custody of the court. The court deliberated on whether a court could be considered an "officer" or "authority" under the Act and concluded that it could not. The court emphasized that if Parliament intended to include courts in the scope of the provision, it would have explicitly stated so. Therefore, the requisition issued to the court was held to be without jurisdiction.

Furthermore, the court rejected the argument that the Income-tax Officer could issue a requisition to a court based on the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act. The Second Schedule pertains to the recovery of tax after adjudication and does not support the interpretation that a requisition could be issued to a court under section 132A. The court found no merit in this argument and dismissed the appeal, directing each party to bear their own costs.

In conclusion, the court held that the Income-tax Officer lacked jurisdiction to issue a requisition under section 132A of the Income-tax Act concerning assets in the custody of the court. The judgment emphasized that courts do not fall under the definition of "officer" or "authority" for the purpose of such requisitions and rejected the argument based on the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act.

---