2023 (4) TMI 394 - HC - Income Tax

Court directs release of seized documents from locker to petitioner, outlines procedure for notification and attendance.

The court issued specific directions for the release of seized documents from locker No. L-322 related to the petitioner. The statutory authority was ... Search operation u/s 132 - release of seized documents - as argued even though assessment order had been passed, both against the searched person and the petitioner, the documents seized have not been released - HELD THAT:- The concerned statutory authority will issue notice to the petitioner, as well as Mr Ashok Kumar, to convene on a given date, time and venue, for carrying out the exercise concerning release of seized documents found in locker No. L-322, which pertain to the petitioner. The intimation will indicate the purpose for which the proceeding is convened i.e., for release of seized documents that were found in locker No. L-322 which concern the petitioner.At this proceeding, the petitioner will be represented by a duly authorized person. In case even after the notice is served on Mr Ashok Kumar, he does not join the proceeding, the concerned statutory authority will release and hand over the documents which concern the petitioner, to its authorized representative.The entire exercise will be completed by the concerned statutory authority, within two weeks of the receipt of the copy of the order. Issues:Release of seized documents from lockers post-assessment order.Analysis:The petitioner's main grievance was that despite assessment orders being passed against both the searched person and the petitioner, the seized documents had not been released. A search operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act was conducted on Mr. Ashok Kumar, during which lockers maintained by him at a specific location were searched. The lockers, specifically L-289 and L-322, were found to contain documents related to the petitioner. The respondents/revenue had no objection to releasing the documents seized from locker No. L-322, but they highlighted the necessity of Mr. Ashok Kumar's consent since the locker was maintained by him.The court disposed of the petition by issuing specific directions. The statutory authority was instructed to notify both the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Kumar to attend a proceeding for the release of seized documents from locker No. L-322 related to the petitioner. The purpose of the proceeding was clearly outlined, and the petitioner was required to be represented by an authorized person. If Mr. Ashok Kumar failed to participate in the proceeding after being served notice, the statutory authority was directed to release the documents to the petitioner's authorized representative. The entire process was to be completed within two weeks of receiving the court's order, with instructions for the parties to act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.