JUDGEMENT
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. -
(1.) This writ petition is directed against the search warrant dated December 16, 1999, search and panchanama dated December 17, 1999, notice dated December 20, 2000, order dated December 29, 2000, and letter dated May 8, 2001, and all proceedings, notices and orders. The Revenue Department on or about December 17, 1999, at about 8.45 a.m. carried out search and seizure of the petitioner's residence at I/A, M. L. Mitra Road, Calcutta-700 017, purported to be under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). Admittedly, in the search warrant and notice, the name of the petitioner was not there. One Sashi Kumar Modi and K. R. International Pvt. Ltd., were the noticees and/or the persons concerned in the search warrant. After completion of the search and seizure of documents and the books of accounts, the writ petition was filed. The petitioner meanwhile also explained and further objected to this action of search and seizure, as there was no search warrant in the name of the petitioner, but in the name of the company in which he was a director. It was explained that the petitioner ceased to be a director of the aforesaid private limited company and further by a family arrangement the premises in question were allotted to the petitioner as owner thereof and the same no longer belonged to either Sashi Kumar Modi or the said private limited company. In spite of this objection, the books of account and other documents were retained and, in fact, extension of such retention period was granted, purporting to be with the approval of the appropriate officials. Such retention of the books of account beyond the statutory period is without any authority of law as no notice of extension was given to the petitioner. The last extension, which was granted, has lost its force and there was no further extension. In spite of that these books of account are still kept by the Revenue Department.
(2.) During the pendency of the writ petition there was subsequent event. As such the petitioner filed the aforesaid application whereby and whereunder the petitioner prayed for further relief in relation to the subsequent development. In sequel to the aforesaid search and seizure a notice under Section 158BC was served upon the writ petitioner aiming to conduct block assessment for a particular assessment year. Ultimately, the aforesaid proceedings under Section 158BC for block assessment were dropped by notice. After serving a notice intimating about dropping of the aforesaid proceedings, a fresh notice under Section 158BD has been issued for proceeding with the block assessment, once again under the aforesaid section.
(3.) On the aforesaid facts and circumstances, Mr. Murarka, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that search and seizure of the petitioner's house is wholly unauthorised and invalid as in the notice or in the warrant of search and seizure the petitioner's name was not mentioned. Furthermore, the residence where the petitioner was residing and was searched did not belong to the notice as by family agreement the petitioner has become the absolute owner. However, there was no mutation in the records of the Municipal Corporation. As such in the records of the Municipal Corporation the previous owner's name is still appearing. The records of municipal authority do not establish ownership, particularly when it was drawn to the attention of the concerned officials of the fact of change of ownership. According to him, the search and seizure of the petitioner's house is wholly illegal and invalid. He contends lawful and valid proceedings for the block assessment under the aforesaid Chapter presupposes valid and lawful search and seizure as required under Section 132 of the said Act. In support of his contention he has relied on a judgment delivered by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, reported in Ajit Jain v. Union of India [2000] 242 ITR 302 at page 312, as confirmed by the hon'ble Supreme Court which is reported again in Union of India v. Ajit Jain.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.