Court finds contempt for disobeying order, approves legal actions under section 132, orders costs against respondents.

The court found the first respondent guilty of contempt for disobeying the court's order by opening sealed premises without permission. Allegations of unauthorized removal of valuables were left for decision in the partition suit. Actions under section 132 were deemed legal due to ongoing search and time extension approval. The first and second respondents were held responsible for costs and remuneration of the Advocate-Commissioner, while the third respondent was exonerated. Application was ordered with costs against the first and second respondents but dismissed against the third respondent.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice issued under section 132 of the Income-tax Act.
2. Contempt of court by the first respondent for disobeying the court's order.
3. Alleged unauthorized removal of valuables from the sealed premises.
4. The legality of the actions taken under section 132 after the stipulated time period.
5. Responsibility of respondents for costs and remuneration of the Advocate-Commissioner.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Notice Issued Under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act:
The petitioner filed a writ petition to quash a notice issued by the first respondent on October 18, 1982, directing the petitioner to furnish particulars regarding certain jewellery. The petitioner argued that any decision in the partition suit would prevail over the presumption under section 132(4A) of the Income-tax Act, which he claimed was ultra vires. The first respondent countered that the notice was a formal letter calling for further information and not an order injected with any illegality.

2. Contempt of Court by the First Respondent for Disobeying the Court's Order:
The petitioner claimed that the first respondent disobeyed the court's order dated December 23, 1982, by opening the sealed premises and removing items without court permission. The first respondent admitted to opening room No. 27 to retrieve a passport on humanitarian grounds, based on the opinion of the Department's advocate at Devakottai. The court found that the first respondent was fully aware of the court order and should have sought permission from the court before opening the sealed room. Therefore, the first respondent was held in contempt of court.

3. Alleged Unauthorized Removal of Valuables from the Sealed Premises:
The petitioner alleged that valuables worth Rs. 10 to Rs. 20 lakhs were removed from the sealed premises. An Advocate-Commissioner was appointed to take an inventory, which revealed that no items listed in the original inventory were missing. However, additional valuables were found, which the first respondent stated would be considered during the assessment. The court left this issue to be decided in the partition suit.

4. The Legality of the Actions Taken Under Section 132 After the Stipulated Time Period:
The petitioner argued that the retention of records beyond 180 days was illegal and that the first respondent had no authority to act without court permission. The first respondent produced approval from the Commissioner to extend the time, stating that the search was still ongoing due to protracted proceedings. The court found that the reliance on the decisions cited by the petitioner did not invalidate the actions taken under section 132.

5. Responsibility of Respondents for Costs and Remuneration of the Advocate-Commissioner:
The court ordered the first and second respondents to share the costs and remuneration of the Advocate-Commissioner, fixed at Rs. 1,500. The third respondent was exonerated as she was not a party to the writ petition and was unaware of the court order.

Conclusion:
The court found the first respondent guilty of contempt for disobeying the court's order by opening the sealed premises without permission. The allegations of unauthorized removal of valuables were left to be decided in the partition suit. The actions taken under section 132 were deemed legal due to the ongoing search and approval for time extension. The first and second respondents were held responsible for the costs and remuneration of the Advocate-Commissioner. The third respondent was exonerated. The application was ordered with costs against the first and second respondents but dismissed against the third respondent.

---