Law:

Section:

Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - General - Search was conducted in residential premises of partners of firm and large amount of cash, documents, gold and ornaments were seized - Some of partners and ladies of their families, objected that some of assets seized belonged to them and those were not property of firm - Income-tax Officer rejected those claims and passed order under section 132(5) - Applications filed by objectors under section 132(11) were dismissed by Commissioner on ground that order under section 132(5) had been superseded by finalised assessment against firm - Whether by passing impugned order, Commissioner totally misconceived ambit of jurisdiction vested in him by sub-sections (11) and (12), of section 132 - Held, yes - Whether objections raised by petitioners, could not be dismissed in limine on ground that assessment of firm, had been finalised or that grievance of objectors did not arise out of order passed by Income-tax Officer under section 132(5) - Held, yes (Matter was remitted to Commissioner for disposal afresh in accordance with law) FACTS In pursuance of an authorisation issued by the Commissioner, a raid was organised and conducted, on the business and residential premises of the firm and its partners. As a result, a large amount of cash, documents, gold and ornaments were seized. As the tax-liability was more, than the assets seized by the department, the Income-tax Officer directed the retention of the entire seized assets in his custody. In the course of the proceedings, the ladies of the family of the partners of the assessee-firm as well as some partners, filed objections stating that some of the assets seized belonged to them. They were not the property of the firm. The Income-tax Officer in the course of his order passed under section 132(5), rejected these various claims. The objectors filed applications under section 132(ii), before the Commissioner, who dismissed all these applications, holding that the order under section 132(5), had by then been superseded by a finalised assessment against the firm. On writ : HELD The Commissioner totaly misconceived the ambit of the jurisdiction vested in…

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