1972 (6) TMI 23 - HC - Income Tax

Approval for Book Retention Requires Notification to Be Valid; No Right to Hearing Before Commissioner

The court held that the approval for retention of books beyond 180 days must be communicated to the affected party for it to be valid. However, the ... Whether the revenue has a statutory obligation to communicate to the first and second respondents the approval granted by the Commissioner of Income-tax for detention of books of account and documents seized under a warrant issued under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and, secondly, whether an opportunity of being heard should have been given to the persons interested in the return of the books and documents before an order of approval is made by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 132(8) Issues Involved:1. Whether the revenue has a statutory obligation to communicate to the respondents the approval granted by the Commissioner of Income-tax for the detention of books of account and documents seized under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Whether an opportunity of being heard should have been given to the persons interested in the return of the books and documents before an order of approval is made by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 132(8) of the Act.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Obligation to Communicate Approval:The primary issue was whether the revenue is required to communicate the approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax for the detention of books and documents seized under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the affected party. The court examined section 132(8) of the Act, which stipulates that books and documents seized shall not be retained beyond 180 days unless reasons for such retention are recorded in writing by the Income-tax Officer and approved by the Commissioner.The appellants argued that the statute does not impose an obligation to communicate the approval to the affected party. They contended that the search and seizure are directed at premises, not individuals, and therefore, the communication of the approval order is not mandated. They cited the Supreme Court decisions in Mohammad Afzal Khan v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Bidya Deb Barman v. District Magistrate, Tripura, which held that failure to communicate an order does not invalidate it.Conversely, the respondents argued that the approval must be communicated to the affected party for it to be valid. They emphasized that without communication, the affected party could not exercise their right to apply under section 132(10) of the Act for the return of the books. The court agreed with the respondents, stating that an order affecting a party must be communicated to be effective. It cited the case of Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab, which established that an order must be communicated to the affected party to be valid.The court concluded that the approval for retention of books beyond 180 days must be communicated to the affected party. Failure to do so renders the order invalid, as it denies the statutory right to challenge the retention.2. Opportunity of Being Heard:The second issue was whether the respondents should have been given an opportunity to be heard before the Commissioner approved the retention of the books beyond 180 days. Although this point was not argued in the trial court, it was raised in the petition.The respondents contended that the approval process requires a judicial or quasi-judicial approach, necessitating a hearing for the affected party. They relied on the Supreme Court decision in Assistant Collector of Customs v. Charan Das Malhotra, which held that an opportunity to be heard is required before extending the detention of goods under the Customs Act.However, the court noted that section 132(8) of the Income-tax Act does not explicitly require a hearing before the Commissioner's approval. Unlike other sub-sections of section 132, which provide for an opportunity to be heard, sub-section (8) does not. The court also referenced the Supreme Court decision in S. Narayanappa v. Commissioner of Income-tax, which stated that the process of recording reasons and obtaining approval is administrative, not quasi-judicial.The court concluded that the Commissioner's approval for retention of books is an administrative order, and the statute does not mandate a hearing for the affected party before such approval. Therefore, the respondents were not entitled to a show-cause notice or an opportunity to be heard before the Commissioner's order.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed, with the court holding that the approval for retention of books beyond 180 days must be communicated to the affected party to be valid. However, the respondents are not entitled to an opportunity to be heard before the Commissioner's approval. The trial court's decision was upheld, and no costs were awarded.