Case Details

Citation(s)
1987 SLG 3378 1987 SLD 3378 (1987) 167 ITR 443
Madras High Court

SATHIADEV, J.

V. Chidambaramv.D. Venkatesan

Law:

Section:

Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - Petitioner had filed partition suit in civil court - In between department issued notice under section 132 against which petitioner filed writ petition and an order was obtained for appointment of an advocate - Commissioner to take inventory of properties - Meanwhile department also obtained an order under section 132 to take inventory of undisclosed properties - Inventory was taken, properties were listed and Court ordered department to keep custody o£ keys of sealed room - On a request of one of family members and after consulting an advocate, without obtaining permission of Court, Department opened sealed room and took out passport of a family member and handed over same to her in presence of witnesses - Whether even if said passport was not seized item under section 132 there was violation of order of Court to open sealed premises without prior permission of Court - Held, yes Facts The petitioner had filed a partition suit for the partition of joint properties. When the first respondent herein, the Assistant Director of Inspection (Intelligence), Directorate of Enforcement, and Inspection, Income-tax Department, issued notice under section 132, the petitioner filed writ petition for quashing the same and an order was obtained for the appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to take inventory of the properties. In the meanwhile, the department also obtained an order under section 132(1) to take inventory of the undisclosed properties. The search was conducted and inventory was taken. The Court ordered the department to keep custody of the key of the sealed rooms. Pending the decision of the civil suit filed by the assessee, the department, on the request of one of the family members and after consulting department's advocate, opened the sealed room and took out the passport lying inside the room. The petitioner then filed the present contempt application contending that there was a violation of the order of the High Court as in absence of permission of the Court the department opened sealed room and that this action of the department was not covered under section 132. Held When an authority is…
🔒
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