Law:

Section:

Section 132(1) of the income-tax act, 1961-Search and seizure-Petitioner gave to a school official cash, ornaments, jewellery and some watches for safe custody-Police seized from official impugned articles under section 102 of the code of criminal procedure-Whether income-tax authorities had jurisdiction to seize property from police custody by issuing search warrant against petitioner-Held, no Facts The petitioner gave to a school official for safe custody certain boxes and bags containing cash, ornaments, jewellery and some watches. Subsequently, the said official refused to return the said articles to the petitioner. On getting the report from the Head Master, the police authorities at Solan seized the above boxes and articles suspected to be smuggled ones and apprised the Customs and Central Excise Departments and the CIT of the contents. Under a regular authorisation from the CIT, the ITO formally re-seized the cash, silver utensils and other hundi documents. On writ petition, the petitioner challenged the ITO's jurisdiction in respect of this seizure and requested for return of the articles to police authorities for lawful disposal. Held 1. There is no merit in the Revenue's claim that the possession of the articles with the police was on behalf of the petitioner. Undoubtedly, the police officer, on getting information about some articles suspected to be stolen or involving some suspected criminal offence, is entitled to seize the same under section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to dispose them off according to the order of the court of competent jurisdiction under section 457 thereof. The articles in this case were obviously seized by the police under section 102 and the seizure effected by the income-tax authorities from the police can not, therefore, be valid. 2. The seizure warrants issued by the CIT were, accordingly, quashed and the directions issued to the ITO to hand over the articles to the police which should produce the same before the court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate orders for their disposal. Case review CIT v. Ramesh Chander [1974] 93 ITR 450 (Punj. & Har.) followed. Case referred to CIT v. Ramesh Chander…

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