Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.43 seconds)

Income-Tax Officer, Special ... vs M/S. Seth Brothers And Ors on 15 July, 1969

18. According to these observations, the Commissioner of Income-tax had to record reasons before issuing the warrant of authorisation which he purported to do. All that he stated was that Balwant Singh had informed him that a sum of Rs. 1,61,000 had been recovered from Ramesh Chander. No other reason has been stated and words of Sub-section (3) of Section 132 have been reproduced. No decision has been brought to my notice contrary to the decisions of the Allahabad and Calcutta High Courts referred to above, to the effect that if the money or the documents are known to be at a place in the custody of another department of the Government, the warrant for search and seizure can be issued. I, therefore, hold that in this case, the Commissioner of Income-tax had no jurisdiction to issue the warrant of authorisation for search and seizure of the money and the documents which had been recovered from Ramesh Chander, petitioner, by Balwant Singh, Traffic Inspector, and which were lying in the office room of the Station House Officer, Kartarpur. The proceedings for search and seizure were wholly illegal and void as the sole object of issuing the warrants of authorisation was to somehow obtain possession of the sum of Rs. 1,61,000 and the documents already recovered from Ramesh Chander by Balwant Singh without there being any basis for the belief that he had evaded the payment of tax under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or the Income-tax Act, 1961, or any other allied Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 109 - J C Shah - Full Document
1   2 3 Next