TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 608X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14 - The Hon ble Justice Arindam Sinha,JJ. For the petitioner : Mr. R. N. Dutta, Adv. Ms. Sutapa Roychowdhury, Adv. For the respondent : Mr. R. N. Bandopadhyay, Adv. ORDER Arindam Sinha, J. The petitioners are assessees having income chargeable to tax. It appears that warrants of authorization dated 19th, 21st and 31st August, 1998 were issued under Section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On 21st August, 1998 search and seizure of the office and residential premises of the petitioners were conducted. Articles including cash were seized. A copy of a Panchanama of that date is an annexure to the writ petition. Though the petitioners have challenged the said warrants of authorization, all proceedings of searc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2002, the law applicable to retention of seized articles and exercise of powers of the authorized officer by the Income-tax Officer having jurisdiction was as provided under Section 132(9A) which is reproduced below. [Section 132 (9A)-Where the authorised officer has no jurisdiction over the person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (1), the books of account or other documents or assets seized under that sub-section shall be handed over by the authorised officer to the Income-tax Officer having jurisdiction over such person within a period of fifteen days of such seizure and thereupon the powers exercisable by the authorised officer under sub-section (8) or sub-section (9) shall be exercisable by such In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Madras High Court considering the provisions of Section 132(9A) of the said Act (as existing in the material time and up to on or before 31st May, 2002) held that in case of the articles seized and retained beyond the period of 15 days from the date of seizure, the retention itself would have been illegal and hence the authorized officer could not also ask for extension of time for holding the documents beyond the period. Appeal from that decision having been dismissed by the Hon ble Supreme Court, this court is bound to accept interpretation of the said provisions as given in the Madras case. Though it appears from Sambhu Prasad Agarwal this court in rendering that judgment had considered K.V. Krishnaswamy Naidu Co., that appeal from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
