Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2013 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 1032 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURTAuthority u/s 131 – Camping of the officer in the premises of the petitioner for recording statements u/s 131(1)(a) - Whether trespass into the house of the petitioner - Held that:- decision of Rajendran Chingaravelu's case [2009 (11) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT], is not application in the present case - first respondent did neither have the authority nor the jurisdiction to enter into the house of the petitioner on January 19, 2012, and set up a camp office therein for recording the statement of the petitioner by invoking section 131(1) of the Income-tax Act - Relief granted to assessee. Authority to effect search u/s 132 – Search not preceded by warrant – Held that:- There is force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent - Revenue that it was only after surveillance that a detection was made of the unaccounted cash in possession of the petitioner and, therefore, proceedings under the Income-tax Act was initiated. The question is, whether such proceedings did have the authority of law. A perusal of section 131 indicates that a notice must be issued calling upon the petitioner to furnish all relevant material particulars and documents in the matter of allegation of being in possession of unaccounted cash and if the petitioner fails to respond to that notice, then section 132(1) comes into play by which the Commissioner, Director General or Director or the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner or Additional Director or Deputy Commissioner or Joint Director or Joint Commissioner may issue warrant for search and seizure. The record made available by the respondent-Revenue discloses the Director of Income-tax (Investigation) on a perusal of the information received approved the issue of warrant for search and seizure on January 19, 2012, though the time is not mentioned therein. It is not known as to what time of the day that order was issued. Indeed, the first respondent armed with a warrant for search and seizure, entered the house of the petitioner on January 19, 2012, at 6.25 p.m. along with panchas and conducted a search, whence, documents and cash of Rs. 40,00,000 were seized from the premises of the petitioner, as indicated in the panchnama, annexure B. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the search and seizure was not preceded by a warrant under section 132 of the Income-tax Act is prima facie unacceptable. - It may be that the petitioner had time up to March 15, 2012, to pay the advance tax and, thereafter, time to file his return for the previous year 2011-12 assessment year 2012-13, but that by itself does not mean that the respondent authorities did not have the jurisdiction to issue a warrant and effect search and seizure under section 132 of the Income-tax Act - Decided against the assessee.
|