Kerala High Court
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M.K. Gabrial Babu And Anr. on 5 December, 1990
Equivalent citations: [1991]188ITR464(KER)
JUDGMENT K. Sukumaran, J.
1. A question of interpretation of Section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is raised in this appeal. The Income-tax Officer made a search and effected a seizure of some items of property by exhibit P-1 dated June 27, 1990. The complaint of the writ petitioner related to the invalidity of his action in relation to the immovable properties mentioned as items Nos. 1 to 3 in the order so passed by the Income-tax Officer. They are properties covered by the G. C. D. A. Scheme at Kaloor, another item of property admeasuring 6.42 cents in Survey No. 83/10/c. 1 with a building and a commercial shop building in Cochin-18.
2. The learned judge who analysed the scope and ambit of the section in the background of the statutory scheme came to the conclusion that the action of the officer is denuded of jurisdiction. After detailing the various provisions in the enactment and analysing the segment of Section 132(1), the learned judge observed :
"It is thus clear from the scheme of these sections that search and seizure go together."
3. Once the location of a property is known, there may not be any necessity to conduct a search and, consequently, no need to seize the property also. The observations of the learned judge, in that behalf, were supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Tarsem Kumar [1986] 161 ITR 505.
4. Uninfluenced by other considerations, the words "other valuable article or thing" would be wide enough to rope in an item of immovable property, according to the learned judge. Support for that proposition is derivable from the decision of the Orissa High Court and the Bombay High Court in CIT v. N. C. Budharaja and Co. [1980] 121 ITR 212 and CIT v. Pressure Piling Co. (India) P. Ltd. [ 1980] 126 ITR 333, respectively. It would not make any difference whether that term is employed in the context or in the company of other words also. A word in a statute, like a man, is, quite often, judged by the company it keeps. The preceding words in Section 132(1)(c) cannot, therefore, be ignored or overlooked. "Money, bullion, jewellery" which precede "other valuable article or thing" forge a genus and, consequently, the words "other valuable article or thing" assume a constricted meaning and interpretation in that context. The general principles of interpretation of a restricted meaning being given to certain words, whether it be by applying the principles of ejusdem generis or otherwise restricting it, had been followed by judicial decisions covering much area and many topics. They are not necessarily confined to income-tax legislation. Those connected with the terms under the income-tax enactment have been referred to by the learned judge in support of his conclusion. We concur with that view. It is unnecessary, therefore, to supplement it by adventitious decisions available from other jurisdictions as well. We affirm the judgment of the learned single judge (M. K. Gabriel Babu v. Asst. Director of I. T. (Investigation) [1990] 186 ITR 435 (Ker)). Counsel for the Revenue submitted that swift action on its part has protected its interest by another order. We are unconcerned with the subsequent developments. We appreciate the anxiety of the Revenue to have an authoritative pronouncement on the scope and amplitude of the section.
5. The appeal is dismissed.