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>Kerala High Court Rules on Seizure of Immovable Properties under Income-tax Act</h1> <h3>MK Gabriel Babu And Another Versus Assistant Director Of Income-Tax (Investigation) And Others</h3> MK Gabriel Babu And Another Versus Assistant Director Of Income-Tax (Investigation) And Others - [1990] 186 ITR 435, 55 TAXMANN 18 Issues Involved: The legality of the seizure of immovable properties u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Summary:The judgment by K. P. Radhakrishna Menon J. of the Kerala High Court dealt with a case where the first petitioner's residence and business premises were searched by the first respondent under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, resulting in the seizure of properties, including immovable ones. The petitioners challenged the seizure of immovable properties, arguing that they cannot be seized under section 132. The Revenue contended that the seizure was justified due to unexplained investments. The key question was whether the seizure of immovable properties was lawful under section 132.The court analyzed the provisions of section 132(1)(c), (i), (iii), and (v) along with the second proviso to determine the scope of seizure powers. It was established that search and seizure are interlinked, and where the location of the property is known, there is no need for seizure. The court referred to a Supreme Court decision to support this interpretation. The debate centered on whether immovable properties could be seized under section 132.The Revenue argued that the term 'other valuable article or thing' in section 132 includes immovable properties if there is undisclosed investment. However, the court disagreed, emphasizing that the section's context limits the scope to movables only. The court cited decisions from other High Courts to support its interpretation. Consequently, the court set aside the seizure of immovable properties in the case.Additionally, the petitioner raised concerns about directing a Valuation Officer to value the properties, arguing it was unwarranted for immovable properties. The court acknowledged the argument but deemed it unnecessary to address due to the properties already being valued. The judgment allowed the original petition to the extent of setting aside the seizure of immovable properties. No costs were awarded in this matter.
TaxTMI 