2024 (9) TMI 1457 - HC - Income Tax

Petition Denied: Seized Documents Retained as Crucial Evidence in Tax Evasion Case; Request Only Post-Assessment.

A. Selvaraj Versus The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central – II, Chennai, The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – I, Coimbatore

The HC dismissed the writ petition, ruling that the petitioner is not entitled to the immediate return of the seized original documents, as they are ... Rejection order of the 2nd respondent - seeking return of seized documents - return of the original documents seized during the search conducted in the petitioner's house - HELD THAT:- Totally, 5 documents were seized from the premises of the petitioner. The petitioner seeks return of the documents which were not only seized from the premises of the petitioner, but also from the third party houses. Hence, he has no right to seek those documents which were seized from the third party. He is entitled to only 5 documents. However, he can only seek those documents upon completion of the assessment proceedings. Now, they are entitled to get only a copy of those documents. These are all the documents which ultimately were seized about the involvement of the petitioner's son in the tax evasion. The respondents have come to the conclusion that there are incriminating documents in connection with the offence alleged against the petitioner's son. Until completion of the assessment proceedings, the petitioner is not entitled for the original documents. The respondents have rightly rejected the contention of the petitioner. No reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Issues:Challenge to rejection order of the 2nd respondent and seeking return of seized documents.Analysis:The petitioner challenged the rejection order of the 2nd respondent and sought the return of original documents seized during a raid. The petitioner's counsel argued that the respondents seized documents belonging to the petitioner's son and the petitioner himself. The court had earlier directed the petitioner to pay 50% of the tax demand for three assessment years, which the petitioner complied with. Subsequently, the court ordered the release of the documents upon payment. However, the respondents only released three documents, prompting the petitioner to file another writ petition seeking the return of the remaining documents. The court directed the petitioner to submit a representation, which was rejected, leading to the impugned order. The petitioner contended that the respondents failed to return the documents despite compliance.The respondents, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel, stated that only 5 documents were seized, which are crucial evidence in the case against the petitioner's son. They argued that only xerox copies can be provided, and the original documents will be returned after the assessment proceedings. The counsel suggested that the petitioner could seek remedy under Section 132(10) of the Income Tax Act if aggrieved. The petitioner's counsel countered that only the Assessee can appeal, not a third party like the petitioner.After hearing both sides, the court addressed the issue of returning the seized documents. It was noted that 5 documents were seized, and the petitioner sought the return of documents seized from third-party houses as well. The court clarified that the petitioner is entitled to only 5 documents and can only request them after the assessment proceedings are complete. As the documents are crucial in the tax evasion case against the petitioner's son, the respondents were justified in retaining the original documents until the assessment proceedings conclude. The court found no reason to interfere with the rejection of the petitioner's request and dismissed the writ petition, with no order as to costs. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed accordingly.