TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the proceedings under section 158BC against the person raided – regarding retention of books accounts, department has sought permission within time limit as prescribed – writ petition rejected – retention of books of account upheld – notice for block assessment sustained. - 1688 of 2002 - - - Dated:- 18-9-2009 - Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal, J. and Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta, J. Petitioner's Counsels - Shakeel Ahmad and Anand Godvole Respondent's Counsel - S.S.C., B.J.Agrawal and S.Chopra JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by S. K. Gupta, J. - In Writ Petition No.1688 of 2002 the petitioner inter- alia seeks following reliefs: (i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7-4-2000 and the Inventory in respect of the seizure of the books of account, documents, cash and goods were also prepared. The respondent issued notices under section 158 BD of the Income Tax Act on 12-2-2002 to the petitioner. By the said notice dated 12-2-2002 the petitioner was required to prepare true and correct return of income in respect of which the petitioner is assessable for the block period as defined in section 158 -B(a) of the Act. Hence the present writ petition. 6. In Writ petition no.1607 of 2002 a prayer has been made to direct the respondent to release the seized books of account and documents as per inventory (Annexure-1 to the petition) forthwith. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... indicates that merely survey was conducted at the business premises(shop) of the petitioner under section 133-A, however, search and seizure was conducted under section 132 of the Act at the residential premises of the partners of the petitioner's firm situate at 122- Lukerganj, Allahabad. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that search and seizure was conducted under section 132 of the Act at the business premises (shop) of the petitioner on 27-4-2000 is not correct and is not borne out from the record. 12. In order to adjudicate upon the controversy whether the provision of Section 158-BD can be invoked in this case or not ,it will be useful at this stage to reproduce Section 158-BD of the Act, which reads as under: "158B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unwarranted and could not have been issued. However, a bare perusal of the record (including the original record which was produced before us) clearly goes to show that search and seizure under Section 132 of the Act was conducted at the residential premises of the partners of the petitioner's firm and mere survey under Section 133-A was conducted at the business premises (shop) of the petitioner. Therefore, there was no occasion for the Income tax authorities to issue notice under section 158BC of the Act to the petitioner. 14. From the facts stated above it can be safely concluded that notice under section 158BD of the Act was legally and rightly issued to the petitioner and no fault can be found with the procedure adopted by the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondents to release the seized books of account and documents as per Inventory and Panchnama is concerned, it has been stated in the counter affidavit that in the case under consideration, approval for retention of books of account seized during search was obtained from the Director (Investigation) Income Tax, Kanpur and the retention of books of account and other documents was sought upto 30-6-2002 and the Director (Investigation) Income Tax, Kanpur accorded his approval for retention of the seized books of accounts and other documents upto 30-6-2002 vide his order dated 29-9-2000. As such permission to retain the books of account was obtained much prior to the expiry of period of 180 days. This averment of the respondents has not been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
