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

2008 (7) TMI 241

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of warrant of requisition dated August 24, 2007, issued by respondent No. 1 under section 132A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act"). 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner belongs to Mathura (U.P.) wherein he carries on the business in the purchase and sale of raw silver, manufacture and sale of silver ornaments in the name and style of M/s. Goyal Payal Company. He is also regularly assessed to income-tax on Permanent Account No. ADWPA1767D by the Income-tax Officer, Ward 3(2), Mathura, and registered with the Trading Tax Authorities of Uttar Pradesh on TIN No. 09427100479. On August 14, 2007, the police o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ounted business assets. The police, after investigation, found that the seized assets had no nexus with any crime and, therefore, did not register any offence against the petitioner. The Magistrate, however, by order dated September 6, 2007, directed that the assets be handed over to the Income-tax Department. On these circumstances, the petitioner has filed this petition assailing the validity of the warrant of requisition issued by respondent No. 1 on the ground that the conditions precedent for the exercise of the powers under section 132A(1) of the Act were not satisfied. 3. On September 14, 2007, this court passed an interim Order directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding the seized assets. The assets are, therefore, s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nts or assets to the requisitioning officer." 6. A statutory functionary must act in a manner laid down in a statute. A bare reading of section 132A (1) makes it clear that the power conferred on the authority is conditional and the conditions precedent for authorizing action are possession of information by the authority and in consequence of which the authority must have reason to believe that the person concerned has assets which have not been or would not have been disclosed for the purpose of the Act. 7. In the case of L. R. Gupta v. Union of India [1992] 101 CTR 179; [1992]194 ITR 32 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court held that the expression "information" must be something more than a mere rumour or a gossip or a hunch and the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 07: "5. From the facts and circumstances found in the case and examination of various documents, I am of the opinion that the jewellery, money and other assets have been acquired from undisclosed sources. Shri Krishna Gopal has not provided any evidence that income-tax has been paid on the money, bullion, jewellery and other assets found in his possession. 6. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case for action under section 132A of the Income-tax Act. DIT (Inv), Bhopal, is, therefore, requested to kindly consider issuance of warrants of requisition under section 132A to be served on Thana Incharge Lord Ganj, Jabalpur, in respect of the assets seized from Shri Krishna Gop .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sets which have not or would not have been disclosed for the purposes of income-tax. From the reasons recorded by respondent No. 1 it is not possible to hold that the information coming to his notice was either not tangible or had no nexus with the formation of his belief about the assets. It cannot be held that the belief of respondent No. 1 was either unreasonable or based on irrelevant information. The belief required under section l32A is subjective and not open to objective test. 13. In ITO v. Seth Brothers [1969] 74 ITR 836 the Supreme Court has held that the power exercised by the Commissioner under section 132 is not a judicial or quasi-judicial power and that the court cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the Commi .....

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