The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 5182 (Pat-HC) : (2021) 277 TAXMAN 0633

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 132 Article 226

Where assessee filed writ petition challenging warrant of authorization of search under section 132, considering that there were disputed facts such as, whether the documents reflecting huge amounts of cash transactions stood reflected in the books of account and was not an undisclosed income, etc., which could be easily taken before the authorities in the adjudicatory proceedings, thus, same could not be accepted in writ jurisdiction.

Search and seizure - Addition under section 132 - Maintainability of writ petition challenging warrant of authorization of search under section 132 - Issue involving consideration of disputed facts to be taken before adjudicating authorities

Premises of certain persons, including assessee, were searched and undisputedly, certain articles, including cash, jewellery and papers were recovered from the bank locker jointly held by assessee with his wife. Allegedly, reports and documents recovered revealed undisclosed transactions of considerably high value, running into thousands of lakh of rupees. Assessee filed writ petition challenging warrant of authorization of search and consequential action of conduct of search and seizure operation, to be illegal, unauthorized and ultra vires the provisions of section 132 of the IT Act, 1961 and rule 112 of IT Rules, 1962. Held: Satisfaction note was clearly concerned with tax evasion activities conducted by various companies and persons mentioned therein and the same was relied upon by the authority to initiate the proceedings under section 132. Further, it must be kept in mind that the Court cannot substitute its own opinion in that regard. Assessee's assertion of having resigned from company and nothing to do with the same, could not be accepted as a disputed fact in writ jurisdiction, more so when records of the ROC reflected the position to be otherwise. In any event, whether assessee, any which way was connected with company or not; or the documents reflecting huge amounts of cash transactions stood reflected in the books of account and was not an undisclosed income was again a question of fact which could be easily taken before the authorities in the adjudicatory proceedings. Note of satisfaction does record reasons calling for necessary authorization to carry out search and seizure operation. The search and seizure operations carried out by IT Department in terms of section 132(1) could not be said to be illegal and ultra vires the Statute.

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : Against the assessee.

A.Y. :



IN THE PATNA HIGH COURT

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT