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>Writ petition dismissed for delay and lack of merit. Stay period excluded from limitation period.</h1> <h3>Dr. VS. Chauhan Versus Director of Income-tax, Investigations</h3> Dr. VS. Chauhan Versus Director of Income-tax, Investigations - [2011] 336 ITR 533 (All) Issues Involved:1. Whether the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches.2. Whether the concerned officer had material or information to have reason to believe that the petitioners did not disclose the true income or property.Detailed Analysis:1. Dismissal on Grounds of Laches:The search by the Income-tax Department took place on 20-3-2002, with subsequent actions including locker searches and notices under various sections of the Income-tax Act. The petitioners filed the writ petition on 15-3-2004, approximately two years after the search. The Court noted that the petitioners were involved in block assessment proceedings without objection until shortly before the limitation period expired. The Court emphasized that while no specific limitation period is prescribed for filing a writ petition, prompt action is expected from an aggrieved party. The delay of two years without sufficient explanation led the Court to conclude that the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of laches.2. Material or Information for Reason to Believe:The petitioners argued that there was no material for the concerned officer to have reason to believe that they had undisclosed income or assets. They highlighted their disclosed professional receipts in earlier years, which were higher than the estimates in the satisfaction note. However, the satisfaction note detailed substantial investments in properties and facilities, suggesting that these could not have been made from the disclosed income alone. The Court referred to the legal standard that the sufficiency of the material is not to be scrutinized at this stage but rather whether the officer had a reasonable basis for the belief. The Court found that the information gathered, including the nature of investments and the high standard of living, justified the officer's belief that the petitioners had undisclosed income or assets.Additional Arguments and Court's Findings:- The petitioners contended that the issuance of a notice under section 131(1A) after the search operation indicated a lack of initial reason to believe. The Court clarified that section 131(1A) is an enabling provision for inquiries before a search and does not affect the validity of a search conducted under section 132. The Court emphasized that section 132 is an independent code and operates in isolation from other provisions of the Act.- The Court also addressed the incorrect reference to section 133(1A) in the notice, stating that such errors do not invalidate the order if the authority can be traced to a statutory provision. The Court found that the information sought could be justified under section 133(6) read with section 135 of the Act.Conclusion:The Court dismissed both writ petitions due to the petitioners' delay in filing and the absence of merit in their arguments. The petitioners were directed to appear before the authority concerned, and the period of the stay order was excluded from the limitation period for completing the block assessment proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
