Case Details

Citation(s)
2007 SLG 3635 2007 SLD 3635 (2007) 290 ITR 449 (2006) 154 TAXMAN 172
Gujarat High Court
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 636 OF 2004, MARCH 29, 2005
M.D. SHAH, J.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Rajiv Agrawal, Deputy Director of IncomE tax

v.

State of Gujarat

Law:

Section:

Section 132A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - Requisition of books of account, etc. - Applicant on receiving information from police regarding seizure of some cash from two persons, conducted an enquiry and recorded statements of connected persons including respondent No. 2 - Later on, respondent No. 2 filed an application before trial court for taking possession of seized cash - Applicant also made a claim for said seized amount by making requisition under section 132A on ground that it was unaccounted money - Trial court, rejected applicant‘s claim and handed over cash to respondent No. 2 - Whether since trial court had not properly appreciated provisions of section 132A, it could be said that it had committed error in passing an order in favour of respondent No. 2 - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, order passed by trial court was required to be set aside - Held, yes HELD Under section 132A, on a requisition being made under sub-section (1), the officer or authority referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c), as the case may be, of the sub-section shall deliver the books of account, other documents or assets to the requisitioning officer either forthwith or when such officer or authority is of the opinion that it is no longer necessary to retain the same in his or its custody. Once the warrant of authorization is issued against any person, then seized amount is required to be retained by the income-tax authority since without taking over the said amount, no further proceedings can be started against any person, from whose custody the amount was recovered. [Para 6] CASE REFERRED TO Parasnath v. Union of India [1997] 225 ITR 365/[1996] 87 Taxman 349 (MP) [Para 6]. Manish R. Bhatt for the Applicant. K.P. Raval and Yogesh S. Lakhani for the Respondent. JUDGMENT M.D. Shah, J. - Heard Mr. Manish R. Bhatt, learned advocate for the applicant, Mr. K.P. Raval, learned Addl. P.P. for the respondent No. 1-State and Mr. Yogesh Lakhani, learned advocate for the respondent No. 2. 2. An information was received by the office of the applicant, IT Department regarding seizure of cash amounting to Rs. 20 lakhs on 9-6-2004 by the Athawa Police, Surat…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492