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>Court upholds summons under Income Tax Act, 1961; jurisdiction objections not considered.</h1> <h3>Lalit Kumar Chhallani Versus Union of India & Anr.</h3> Lalit Kumar Chhallani Versus Union of India & Anr. - TMI Issues:Jurisdiction of the Court, Validity of Summons under Income Tax Act, 1961, Competency of Assistant Director of Income Tax to issue summons, Transfer of PAN jurisdiction, Challenge to search and seizure.Jurisdiction of the Court:The petitioner challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the court, but the court did not examine this issue at that stage due to the order proposed to be passed. The objection to the territorial jurisdiction was raised, but the court did not delve into it.Validity of Summons under Income Tax Act, 1961:The petitioner filed a petition to challenge the summons issued by the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv.) under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The summons required the petitioner to appear, provide income computation details for multiple assessment years, and furnish information on immovable properties. The petitioner, previously assessed in Chennai, was searched in Indore, and the summons was issued post that search by the investigative wing in Delhi.Competency of Assistant Director of Income Tax to issue summons:The court analyzed the competence of the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv.) to issue the summons in light of the search conducted by the investigative wing. It was determined that the Assistant Director was authorized to issue the summons under Section 131(1) and 131(1A) in connection with the search conducted at the petitioner's premises.Transfer of PAN jurisdiction:The Income Tax Authorities proposed to transfer the PAN jurisdiction of the petitioner from one office to another, which was objected to by the petitioner. The transfer was under consideration, and the petitioner's objection was pending. The court noted this aspect but did not delve into it further as it was not directly relevant to the petition challenging the summons.Challenge to search and seizure:The petitioner reserved the right to challenge the search and seizure on various grounds not raised in the current petition. The court clarified that it had not examined any other grounds for challenging the search and seizure conducted by the investigative wing of the Income Tax Department in New Delhi.In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition challenging the summons, finding no merit in the arguments presented. The judgment highlighted the distinction between investigation and assessment processes within the Income Tax Department, affirming the competence of the Assistant Director to issue the summons based on the search conducted. The petitioner's right to challenge the search and seizure on other grounds was acknowledged, but those grounds were not addressed in this particular petition.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
