| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1992 SLG 1636 1992 SLD 1636 (1992) 196 ITR 595 |
Patna High Court
S. ROY AND N.S. RAO, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
S. ROY AND N.S. RAO, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Sardar Santosh Singh
v.
Commissioner of IncomE tax
Law:
Section:
Section 132 of the Income-tax Act 1961 - Search and seizure - At time of search petitioner stated that some of jewellery in locker seized belonged to his daughter-in-law - Subsequently department proposed to deliver said jewellery to petitioner's daughter-in-law - Whether action of department should not be interfered with - Held, yes FACTS At the time of search of the residential house of the petitioner, the key of locker of the Bank, of which the petitioner was the hirer, was also taken away by the Income-tax Department. At that time, the petitioner had made a statement in which he had, inter alia, stated that some jewellery in that locker belonged to his daughter-in-law. Subsequently, when the locker was again opened the respondent proposed to deliver the jewellery to the daughter-in-law which belonged to her. The petitioner raised an objection contending that notwithstanding the statement made by him at the time of search that part of the jewellery belonged to his daughter-in-law, there was no provision under section 132 under which part of the jewellery belonging to her could have been handed over to her. HELD Even if there had been any irregularity committed by the Department in returning the jewellery to the daughter-in-law, still in view of the petitioner's statement recorded on the date of search and in view of the fact that the lady, was his daughter-in-law, the action taken by the respondents, should not be interfered with. Note: Decision was against the Petitioner. Moitra for the Applicant. JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the parties. There is no dispute that, on May 25, 1990, at the time of search of the residential house of the petitioner, the key of locker No. 33 in the Punjab National Bank, of which the petitioner was the hirer, was also taken away by the Income-tax Department. There is no dispute again that, on May 25, 1990, the petitioner had made a statement in which he had, inter alia, stated that some jewellery in that locker…
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