9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (9) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epartment seems to be labouring under a misconception with regard to the scope of section 132 and the powers of the authorities concerned. The petitioner is a private limited company which is engaged in the business of transport at Kanpur. On May 8, 1969, the income-tax department carried out a raid at the business premises of the petitioner-company as well as the residential premises of its cashier, Sri S. R. Verma, and seized 61 account books and other papers and documents. In its letter dated May 13, 1969 (annexure " I " to the writ petition), the petitioner requested the first respondent, the Commissioner of Income-tax, for the copies of the following documents : (a) reasons, if any, whether recorded or not, on which authorisation for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the request for the return of the seized books, etc., the same are under scrutiny and would be returned thereafter." The second respondent, the Income-tax Officer, Companies Circle, B-Ward, Kanpur, had also impounded certain documents of the petitioner on May 6, 1971, under section 131 of the Act. Some more documents were impounded on October 15, 1971. When these documents and account books seized were not returned to the petitioner for a long time, he filed the present writ petition. The seizure of the account books and the documents has been challenged mainly on three grounds : (i) that the Commissioner did not record any reason before issuing the search warrants ; (ii) that the books of accounts were retained beyond the period allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to him, he will not be able to satisfy himself that the action against him is justified and to seek redress against any illegal action taken or order passed. It is a well-known maxim that " justice not only should be done, but should be seem to have been done ". An aggrieved person is entitled to know that the requirements of the law have been complied with. We are thus satisfied that the Commissioner was not justified in refusing to the petitioner the inspection of the record or copies asked for by him. We may make it clear that in a given case it may be possible for the Commissioner to treat a particular information or a document as confidential and to withhold its inspection. But that is not the case of the department in the instant ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
