| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1969 SLG 522 1969 SLD 522 (1969) 74 ITR 836 |
Supreme Court of India
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 700 TO 703 FO 1965, dated July 15, 1969
J.C. SHAH AND G.K. MITTER, JJ.
Sukumar Mitra, S.K. Aiyar, R.H. Dhebar and B.D. Sharma for the Appellant. M.C. Chagla, S.C. Manchanda, P.N. Pachauri, P.N. Duda, D.N. Mukherjee, S.P. Jain and B.P. Maheshwari for the
Respondent.
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 700 TO 703 FO 1965, dated July 15, 1969
J.C. SHAH AND G.K. MITTER, JJ.
Sukumar Mitra, S.K. Aiyar, R.H. Dhebar and B.D. Sharma for the Appellant. M.C. Chagla, S.C. Manchanda, P.N. Pachauri, P.N. Duda, D.N. Mukherjee, S.P. Jain and B.P. Maheshwari for the
Respondent.
Income Tax Officer
v.
Seth Brothers
Law:
Section:
Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - General - Assessment year 1954-55 - Whether an error committed by officer in seizing documents which may ultimately be found not to be useful for or relevant to proceeding under Act will not by itself vitiate search, nor will it entitle aggrieved person to an omnibus order releasing all documents seized - Held, yes - Whether section 132 does not confer any arbitrary upon revenue officers -held, yes - Whether where Commissioner entertains requisite belief and reasons recorded by him authorizes a designated officer to enter and search premises for books of account and documents relevant to or useful for any proceeding under Act, Court in a petition by an aggrieved person cannot be asked to substitute its own opinion whether an order authorizing search should have been issued - Held, yes FACTS After completion of assessment for the assessment year 1954-55, the ITO on 14-3-1963 issued a notice under section 148 intimating the assessee firm that there was reason to believe that their income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and it was proposed to reassess this income. In response to the notice, the assessee filed a return under protest. In the meantime an information was received by the ITO that assessee were maintaining "duplicate records" and were evading assessment of their true income and that it was necessary to seize the records which may be found at premises in which assessee carried on the business. The Commissioner issued an order in form 45 authorising the ITO to search the premises. Accordingly the premises were searched and account books and certain documents were seized. On writ, the petitioner assessee submitted that an ex-employee of it had given false information to the Deputy Director of Inspection with a view to blackmail the partners and that the order of search was made by the Commissioner at the direction of the Deputy Director of Inspection ; that the action of the ITO in searching the premises and in seizing the books of account was malicious and that in any event section 132 and the rules framed there under, were violative of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by articles…
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