2001 (11) TMI 30

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appellant disclosed the income of Rs.32,000 for the assessment year 1996-97, Rs.4,32,000 for the assessment year 1997-98 and offered to pay income-tax thereon in terms of the said scheme. The said declaration was filed on December 29, 1997. The asset in regard to which the income was declared was a vacant site for the assessment year 1996-97, fixed deposit made on November 3, 1996, in regard to assessment year 1997-98 and eight gold biscuits for the assessment year 1997-98. The respondent refused to accept the said declaration as per the communication dated December 30, 1997, on the ground that action under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, had been initiated in the case of the petitioner and therefore he is not eligible to file a de....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1999 (Rudrachar v. Director of Income-tax (Investigation) [2002] 257 ITR 549 (Karn)), decided on November 3, 2001, wherein we have held that the mere fact that Rudrachar opened the locker and permitted inventory on March 31, 1997, did not come in the way of a search warrant being issued on April 1, 1997, and the search warrant issued was valid. In so far as the second contention is concerned, the appellant contended that there was no search in regard to his income under section 132 of the Income-tax Act prior to the declaration and, therefore section 64(2)(ii) of the Act did not come in the way of his declaration being accepted. This contention is not supported by the facts. It is seen that on March 31, 1997, when Rudrachar opened the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ote, the Deputy Director of Income-tax (Investigation) has recommended action on the same day, i.e., April 1, 1997. The Director of Income-tax (Investigation) has recorded his satisfaction that the case relating to locker No. 139 was a fit case for action under section 132 of the Income-tax Act which is necessary and justified. It is thus evident that even though search warrant was issued in the name of Rudrachar, it related to not only to the assets of Rudrachar, but the assets of the appellant also. In the search warrant, the name of Rudrachar was mentioned because the locker stood in the name of Rudrachar and not in the name of the appellant. However, a reading of the satisfaction note and the orders passed thereon by the authorised a....