TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the ninety days limitation in section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 can be waived by the person for whose benefit it is provided and whether a fresh order passed by the Income-tax Officer pursuant to a court direction (or under section 132(12)) must itself comply with the ninety days limitation; (ii) Whether the High Court could order return of silver bars attached under section 132(3) without deciding the correctness of the Income-tax Officer's fresh order on ownership.
Issue (i): Whether the period prescribed by section 132(5) is waivable by the aggrieved person and whether a subsequent order made pursuant to a court direction or under section 132(12) is bound by the original ninety days limitation.
Analysis: The period in section 132(5) is intended for the benefit of the person whose property is seized. A party may waive such a benefit; consent terms that lead to a fresh disposal by the Income-tax Officer operate as waiver. Where an order within ninety days is set aside and a court directs a fresh inquiry or the notified authority directs a fresh order under section 132(11)/(12), the fresh order is not constrained anew by the original ninety days limitation; requiring such would render subsections (11) and (12) and the court's power under Article 226 otiose. The substantive question of ownership of seized property concerns title and is governed by ordinary principles applicable to tribunals and courts deciding title, not by the limitation rules applicable to assessment proceedings. Authorities on waiver and estoppel (including decisions applying similar statutory-benefit waivers) are applicable.
Conclusion: The ninety days period in section 132(5) is waivable by the person for whose benefit it is enacted; a fresh order passed by the Income-tax Officer pursuant to a court direction or under section 132(12) is not required to be passed within the original ninety days period.
Issue (ii): Whether the High Court could direct return of silver bars attached under section 132(3) without examining the correctness of the Income-tax Officer's fresh order on ownership.
Analysis: The silver bars in question were attached under section 132(3) (not seized under section 132(1)) and the consent-directed fresh inquiry contemplated an order under section 132(5). Having waived the limitation and obtained a fresh order, respondents could not successfully contend that the Income-tax Officer lacked jurisdiction to pass that order. A High Court ordering return without adjudicating the correctness of the Income-tax Officer's fresh order effected a disposition outside permissible scope where jurisdiction and substantive ownership had not been examined in favour of the party seeking return.
Conclusion: The High Court's order directing return of the attached silver bars was not permissible where the respondents had waived the limitation and the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to pass a fresh order; the High Court could not order return without deciding the substantive ownership issue.
Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed; the High Court judgment ordering return of the attached silver bars is set aside and the matter is remitted for consideration of remaining contentions in the writ petition by the High Court consistent with this decision.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory time-limit enacted for the benefit of a person may be waived by that person, and where a court directs a fresh disposal or the notified authority issues direction under sections 132(11)/(12), the fresh order is not required to be confined by the original time-limit in section 132(5); attachment under section 132(3) does not entitle return without adjudication of substantive ownership following a lawful fresh inquiry.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
