Law:

Section:

Section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 112 of the Income-Tax Rules, 1962 - Search and seizure - Whether on basis of warrant of authorisation issued to conduct search of partnership firm, residential premises of petitioner, who was one of partners of firms, could be searched - Held, no - Whether in a case where in lieu of jewellery, etc., found during search of petitioner's premises, petitioner voluntarily offered that a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs be seized, it could be said that there was no seizure of money as same had been offered voluntarily and, therefore, question of passing of order under section 132(5) did not arise - Held, yes - Whether an order under section 132(5) can be passed only where bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing is seized by authorised officer and if there is no seizure valid in law question of passing an order under section 132(5) does not arise at all - Held, yes FACTS A warrant of authorisation was issued to conduct a search of the premises of the partnership firm and its sister concerns. On the basis of the aforesaid authorisation, a search took place of the residential premises of the petitioner, who was also one of the partners of the firm in question. On search certain unaccounted assets like share certificates, gold and silver articles were found. All the above were inventorised but seizure of the said articles of gold, silver and share certificates was not effected. On the request of the petitioner, the authorised officer did not seize them as the petitioner agreed to seizure of sum of Rs. 25 lakhs voluntarily in lieu of said items. Thereafter, an order under section 132(5) was passed. On writ, the petitioner contended, inter alia, that (i) the department could not have conducted search on the basis of the authorisation issued in the name of the firms, of his residential premises nor any article found therein could have been seized, and (ii) the jewellery and other documents found were not seized but merely taken note of or inventorised and he was asked to withdraw a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs, which sum was said to have been seized, and as such, no order under section 132(5) could be passed. HELD Rule…

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