Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2017 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (2) TMI 645 - HC - Income TaxSearch and seizure u/s 132 - Held that:- There is no dispute about the contention raised by the petitioner that at the time of search and seizure no bullion or jewellery has been recovered, but there is also no dispute about the fact that certain documents have been seized as would be evident from the inventory list and when the authorities have gone through the seized documents, they have found that the income having been undisclosed by the petitioner reason being in spite of specific direction given to the petitioner to produce his documents, the documents have not been produced. After going through the explanation given by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar that although at the initial stage, no bullion or jewellery has been recovered, since it was in permissible limit, documents have been seized and in course of their examination, the authorities have come to a definite conclusion that certain income has not been disclosed and as such, for being satisfied, a notice under Section 153-A of the Act, 1961 has been issued and in terms thereof, the petitioner has given his detailed reply as would be evident from Annexure-6 annexed to the writ petition and after scrutiny of the reply, the authorities came to the conclusion that the books of account pertaining to M/s.Vasumati Builders Pvt. Ltd. has not been produced in spite of the direction having been given to him by the Income Tax authorities, as a result, the authorities have no other alternative than to conduct search and seizure in the premises of the petitioner. The competent authority can resort to the provisions of the Act, 1961, if it is opinion that the assessee is flouting the provisions of the Act and if in that situation, it comes to the conclusion that it is necessary to resort to the provisions under Section 132, then it cannot be said that there was no reason behind resorting to the provisions of the Act, 132 of the Act, 1961. Moreover, initiation of the proceeding under Section 132 has never been questioned by the petitioner immediately thereafter before any Court of law save and except challenging the same after lapse of two years by way of writ petition. There is no dispute about the contention raised by the petitioner that if the root will go, nothing remains. But as we have discussed hereinabove, we found that the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner has got no substance. We are of the further considered view that since the assessment order has been passed by the competent authority, it will not be proper for this Court to enter into the merit of the assessment order since this is not questioned in this writ petition.
|