9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1032X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by filing statement of objections. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the first respondent claiming to be a salesman, gained entry into the petitioner's home in the morning hours of January 19, 2012, and illegally opened his camp office inside the house, sans authority, and issued the summons, annexure A, invoking section 131 of the Income-tax Act, for short "the IT Act", summoning the petitioner to appear before him in the camp office in the petitioner's home at 10.45 a. m., on January 19, 2012, for giving evidence, producing books of account and other documents. It is the further allegation of the petitioner that the first respondent checked nook and corner of the petitioner's home without sensitivity to the privacy of the women pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the first respondent had no authority under law to step into the house of the petitioner and issue him a notice, annexure A, which, in other words, tantamounts to trespassing without authority of law. 5. In opposition, the learned counsel for the respondent-Revenue submits that under section 131(1)(a), the power of discovery and inspection as is vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), was invoked and the notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner and, therefore, it cannot be said that the notice suffers from lack of authority or jurisdiction. Learned counsel submits that there was no trespass into the house of the petitioner, but that the notice indicating the camping of the officer in the premises of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in matter of discovery and inspection, amongst other matters. 8. A perusal of Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure under the nomenclature "discovery and inspection", and rules 1 to 23 thereunder, do not indicate that the court can issue notice to a party and open a court in the house of the party and call upon that party to give statement in his house. If that is so, then the Income-tax Act does not invest in the first respondent, the power to have a camp office at the residence of the petitioner and call the petitioner's attendance in connection with proceedings under the Income-tax Act. Thus, the notice, annexure A, issued by the first respondent requiring the attendance of the petitioner in connection with the proceedings under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorities to find out whether he can carry large sum of money, in cash, while travelling, was informed that there was no prohibition and, therefore, he withdrew Rs. 65,00,000 in cash travelled by air from Hyderabad to Chennai on June 15, 2007, carrying the cash. At the Hyderabad airport, he disclosed to the security personnel who checked his bag and found cash of Rs. 65,00,000 along with bank certificates certifying the source and withdrawals, whereafter he was allowed to board the aircraft without any objection. But when the flight reached Chennai, some police officials and others (who later identified themselves as Income-tax Investigating Wing) rushed in, loudly called out his name and when he identified himself, was virtually pulled o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed before a competent criminal court, if so advised. 11. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unting of the said Rs. 40,00,000 since a return filed is pending consideration, and reserving liberty to the petitioner to question the order of assessment that may be passed over the return for the aforesaid year, if aggrieved, this petition is limited, to the validity of the notice, annexure A. 13. In the view taken supra, the answer to the first relief is that the 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. In the result, the petition is allowed in part. Notice dated January 19, 2012, annexure A is quashed. The reliefs of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
