TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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: Whether cash lying in court deposit, which the Income-tax Officer was statutorily empowered to seize under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, could be directed to be handed over to him under section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, and whether such seizure required a prior search of the defaulter's premises.
Analysis: The statutory power under section 132 was treated as a primary power of seizure, with the powers to enter, search, and break open receptacles being only incidental and ancillary to that power. On that basis, a person authorised to seize property under the Act was held to be a person entitled to possession for the purposes of section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and there was no need to require an empty ritual of first returning the money and then seizing it again. The Court further held that the statutory requirement of reason to believe was satisfied on the facts, and that seizure could be effected even from court custody or from the possession of a person other than the suspected defaulter, so long as the money represented undisclosed income and was found in the course of lawful search or equivalent search action within the meaning of the section.
Conclusion: The Income-tax Officer was entitled to possession of the seized cash, and the direction to hand over the amount to the Income-tax department was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The revision failed because the statutory power of seizure under the Income-tax law prevailed over the rival claim to return of the court-deposited cash.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory authority empowered to seize property representing undisclosed income may obtain court custody of that property under section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the power of seizure under section 132 of the Income-tax Act is not defeated merely because the property is already in court deposit or because no prior search of the suspect's own premises preceded the seizure.
TaxTMI 
