Law:

Section:

SECTION 132(8) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - SEARCH AND SEIZURE - WHETHER AN ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INSPECTION AUTHORISED TO CONDUCT A SEARCH BY COMMISSIONER UNDER SECTION 132(1)(a ) WOULD BE AN AUTHORISED OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER PERSON SUBJECTED TO SEARCH WITHIN MEANING OF SECTION 132(8) - HELD, YES - WHETHER, WHERE APPROVAL OF COMMISSIONER UNDER SECTION 132(8) HAS BEEN OBTAINED FOR RETAINING BOOKS AND DOCUMENTS IMPOUNDED FOR A PERIOD EXTENDING 180 DAYS BUT NOTICE OR INFORMATION OF SAID APPROVAL HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN TO PERSON CONCERNED, SUCH RETENTION OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS ANY FURTHER WOULD BE INVALID AND UNLAWFUL - HELD, YES Facts The Assistant Director of Inspection (ADI) made a search under section 132 at the petitioner's premises and seized certain documents and papers. Subsequently, after 180 days were over, the petitioner requested the revenue to release the aforesaid documents and papers. The revenue refused to do so and sought to justify the retention of the aforesaid materials on the ground that the approval of the Commissioner under section 132(8) had been taken from time to time. The petitioner, on the other hand contended (i ) that in view of the provisions of section 139(9A), the ADI should have handed over all the materials seized to the ITO within 15 days of such seizure and as that had not been done in the instant case, any further retention of the aforesaid materials had become illegal, and (ii) that periodical extension of time by the Commissioner under section 132(8) would not in any way make the retention of the documents legal, and even assuming that such extension of time was wanted, it would have to be done at least under notice or information to the petitioner and as no such notice or information had been given to the petitioner, in the instant case, any extension alleged to have been made was invalid and had to be considered as non est in law. It was further submitted that the entire procedure adopted by the ADI was illegal inasmuch as the extension of time ought to have been asked for only by the relevant ITO and not by the ADI. On writ: Held The objection, in the instant case, that the authorised officer, who was the ADI, had no…

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