Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2000 (12) TMI 52

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in respect of the-property, wherein the said search was carried out, But at the time of hearing no argument was advanced in respect of the second plea, i.e., relating to the order under section 142(2A) of the Act. The background, as projected by the petitioner, is essentially as follows: The petitioner-company was incorporated on May 31, 1993, having its registered office at B-362/17, Gali No. 16, Block B. Bhajanpura, Delhi. On June 22, 1998, the Assistant Director of Income-tax, Unit IV (in short " A.D.I.T."), searched the premises C-397, Chadha Complex, Main Market, Bhajanpura, Delhi, and sealed the premises. A panchnama was prepared. The search party was authorised to search one Sonu Systems, whereas the petitioner is a private limit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ner applied for inspection of the seized records. After inspection, the petitioner came to know that there was no authorisation for the search against the petitioner-company, and obtained copies of the documents. On June 9, 2000, the petitioner submitted its reply to the notice dated May 25, 2000. It was specifically mentioned that the notice is bad and illegal, as there was no authorisation for the search in relation to the petitioner. As there was violation of the provisions of clauses (a), (b) or (c) of sub-section (1) of section 132, the action was incompetent. It was further stated that the petitioner only carried on business between May 31, 1993, to February 15, 1997, and suffered huge losses and ultimately on February 15, 1997, the b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... stand, that there was no proper authorisation by the competent authority, submitted that the same was by the Additional Deputy Director of Income-tax (Investigation). Reference is made to section 2(21) of the Act to contend that there was no post of Additional Deputy Director of Income-tax in existence and, therefore, the authorisation was not in order. Learned counsel for the Revenue, on the other hand, submitted that the search was conducted after authorisation by the competent authority. A copy of the warrant clearly mentioned the name of Sonu Systems Pvt. Ltd. The panchnama also mentions the name of the party searched, i.e., Sonu Systems Pvt. Ltd. The A. D. I. T. sealed the premises on June 22, 1998. The premises sealed were at C-397, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 19, 1998, mentioned in the restraint order under section 132(3) of the Act is the date on which the original warrant in the case of the T. R. Chadha group was signed. Reference was made to the copy of the sales tax return, wherein the party's address was stated to be C-397, Main Market, Bhajanpura, Delhi, from where the incriminating documents were seized. It was submitted that the order dated September 7, 1998, by the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi, does not pertain to the assessee and is irrelevant for the purpose of the case at hand. In the aforesaid background, it has been contended that the writ petition is thoroughly misconceived. Before we go to the factual position, highlighted by the parties, it is necessary to take note .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1994, with effect from June 1, 1994. The word "Joint" as presently appearing was substituted for "Deputy" by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, with effect from October 1, 1998. Similarly, the expression "or Deputy Director" was inserted by the said Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998. Much has been made of what is mentioned in the panchnama where the expression "Deputy Director" which was already existing was corrected by addition of the word "Additional" without deletion of the word "Deputy". It is fairly accepted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no post of Additional Deputy Director. We have perused the original records produced before us. They clearly show that the order was passed by the Additional Director of Income-tax on June .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates