TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (10) TMI 54
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he petitioner submits that the search did not unearth any black money or unexplained income. However, books of account and other documents were inventorised and seized by the searching party and are in the possession of the investigation wing of the Income-tax Department. The petitioner is, however, aggrieved by the illegal detention of those documents by the second respondent, an officer functioning under the first respondent. The petitioner submits that though the second respondent was not an authorised officer who conducted the search, he being subordinate, the first respondent is entrusted with post search duties to process the case for eventual entrustment to the Assessing Officer. The petitioner submits under sub-section (9A) of se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petition and has come up with this appeal. Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, Sri Vijayan Nair, submitted that the learned single judge was not justified in not examining the question as to whether the intelligence wing of the Income-tax Department represented by R1 and R2 have exceeded their powers and retained the search documents beyond the time allowed by section 132(9A) of the Income-tax Act. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Madras High Court in K.V. Krishnaswamy Naidu and Co. v. CIT [1987] 166 ITR 244 affirmed by the Supreme Court in CIT v. K.V. Krishnaswamy Naidu and Co. [2001] 249 ITR 794. Counsel submitted exhibits R2(c) and R2(d) are documents created to cover up the illegal custody established by exhibit ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tant Director of Income-tax (Investigation)-II, Ernakulam, who is also an Assessing Officer as per section 2(7A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Director of Income-tax (Investigation), Kochi. He has been assigned with the jurisdiction under orders issued under section 120(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Director of Income-tax (Investigation), Kochi. Further, it was also pointed out that the Assistant Director of Income-tax (Investigation)-I, Ernakulam, and the Assistant Director of Income-tax (Investigation)-II, Ernakulam, have concurrent jurisdiction and reference was made to notification dated January 23, 2002, authorising the second respondent with jurisdiction. We heard counsel on either side and also perused the argument ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....961, by the Director of Income-tax (Investigation), Kochi. The authorised officers handed over the seized documents to the Assistant Director of Income-tax (Investigation)/Deputy Director of Income-tax (Investigation) having jurisdiction over the case after the search. Post search enquiries and preparation of appraisal report are thereafter taken by the ADI/DDL All these facts would indicate that the Assessing Officer exercising the powers of assessment (Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 2(2), Ernakulam) is the only officer having power to retain the documents is not correct, especially with effect from October 1, 1996, "Assessing Officer" includes ADI/DDI as per section 2(7A) of the Income-tax Act and as such retention of the se....