Case Details

Citation(s)
2005 SLG 2071 2005 SLD 2071 (2005) 272 ITR 274
Patna High Court
C.W.J.C. No. 4783 OF 2004 SEPTEMBER 8, 2004
SHASHANK KUMAR SINGH AND R.S. GARG, JJ.

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

Takshila Educational Society

v.

Director of Income Tax (Investigation)

Law:

Section:

Order of authorization and search is to be justified on material available with department and reason which led to belief of authority and non-recovery of article would not unjustify search Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - General - Whether order of authorisation and search is to be justified on material available with department and reason which led to belief of authority and non-recovery of article would not unjustify search - Held, yes - Whether disclosure of materials or information to persons against whom action under section 132 is proposed is not mandatory because very disclosure of facts already collected by department would adversely affect or hamper investigation - Held, yes - Whether allegation that an officer is prejudicial or biased would not be sufficient unless evidence is brought on record leading to positive conclusion that bias is established - Held, yes FACTS The petitioner-society used to obtain franchise to open school in various States under the aegis of the Delhi Public School Society. Pursuant to warrant of authorization issued by the Director of Income-tax (Investigation), search and survey operations under sections 132(1) and 133A(1) were carried out in the premises of the petitioner-society and certain documents were seized therein. The petitioner filed the instant writ petition alleging that respondent No. 2, the Deputy Director of Income-tax (Investigation), had made an application for the submission of his son in one of such schools, but since his son could not qualify the standard laid down by the school he was not admitted and respondent No. 2, thereafter, acting with malice and mala fide against the petitioner illegally convinced the higher authorities and obtained the warrant of authorization. The petitioner further alleged that the respondents had not recorded any reason as to their satisfaction nor had disclosed any information to the petitioner which led to the belief of the respondents that the petitioner was violating the provisions of law and that the petitioner's case was not covered within the sweep of section 132 (1)(a), (b) or (c ) as neither there was any failure to comply with any…
🔒
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