TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 Legality of Income-tax Officer Procedures under Section 132</h1> The court upheld the legality of the procedures adopted by the Income-tax Officer under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It dismissed the ... Assessment Proceedings, Bona Fide, Gift Tax, Income Tax Authorities, Market Value, Reason To Believe, Reassessment Proceedings Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Legality of the seizure of money by the Income-tax Officer.3. Applicability of sub-section (3) of Section 132 in cases where a search was unnecessary.4. Validity of the procedure adopted by the Income-tax Officer in issuing notices and orders under Section 132.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Interpretation of Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The core issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 132, particularly sub-section (1)(c), which deals with the conditions under which the Income-tax authorities can conduct searches and seizures. The court emphasized that the section must be read in its entirety to understand the legislative intent. The section allows the Income-tax Officer to enter and search any building or place where there is reason to suspect that undisclosed income or property is kept. The court highlighted that the term 'search' should not be given a far too technical meaning but should be understood in its general sense as 'to look for' or 'to seek.'2. Legality of the Seizure of Money by the Income-tax Officer:The petitions challenged the legality of the seizure of Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 25,010.15 by the Income-tax Officer. The court noted that the amounts were initially seized by the Central Excise Department and the Enforcement Directorate under the Customs Act and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, respectively. However, once the investigations under these acts were complete, the officers holding the money were in the position of bailees and were holding the money on behalf of the individuals from whom it was seized. The court concluded that under sub-section (1)(c) of Section 132, the Income-tax Officer could lawfully seize these amounts from the authorities holding them.3. Applicability of Sub-section (3) of Section 132 in Cases Where a Search Was Unnecessary:The argument presented was that sub-section (3) of Section 132, which allows for the issuance of an order to hold money or other articles, is inapplicable in cases where a search was unnecessary. The court referenced decisions from the Calcutta and Allahabad High Courts, which supported this view. However, the court disagreed with these interpretations, stating that the primary power conferred by Section 132 is the power of seizure, and the ancillary powers of search and breaking locks are merely means to facilitate this primary power. The court opined that it would be unrealistic to insist on a physical search when the money was already known to be in possession of an authority.4. Validity of the Procedure Adopted by the Income-tax Officer in Issuing Notices and Orders Under Section 132:The petitioners argued that the procedure adopted by the Income-tax Officer, including the issuance of notices under Rule 112A and orders under sub-section (15) of Section 132, was unwarranted by law. The court examined the notices and orders, concluding that they were validly issued to demand the handover of the money to the Income-tax Officer. The court also noted that actual searches were conducted, and seizures were made, as evidenced by the panchanamas. The court found no illegality in the proceedings and upheld the actions taken by the Income-tax Officer.Conclusion:The court dismissed the petitions, holding that the procedures adopted by the Income-tax Officer were lawful and justified under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court emphasized that the section should be interpreted in a manner that reflects its legislative intent and that the ancillary powers of search and seizure are meant to facilitate the primary power of seizure. The court also noted that any irregularities in the course of the search and seizure would not vitiate the actions taken, provided they were executed bona fide.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
