1998 JTR(SC) 105
2001 168 CTR 610 ; 2001 249 ITR 794 ; 2001 9 SCC 767 ; 2001 118 Taxman 889 ; 2001 KHC 4015
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N.Kirpal : S.P.Kurdukar
Commissioner Of Income Tax
Versus
K.V.Krishnaswamy Naidu And Company
Case No. : 232 of 1986
Date of Decision : 1/22/98
An officer authorized for search and seizure who is not empowered to pass an order under Section 132(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot retain seized documents beyond 15 days or propose their further retention beyond 180 days.
Act
Referred
:INCOME TAX ACT
: S.132(5)
(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 132, sub-sections (5), (8) and (9-A) - Search and seizure - Retention of seized documents - An authorized officer for the purposes of carrying out search and seizure who is not the officer empowered to pass an order under sub-section (5) cannot retain seized documents beyond 15 days - Consequently, such officer is not competent to moot a proposal under sub-section (8) for further retention of the documents beyond 180 days. (Para 1)
Facts of the case:
An officer authorized to conduct search and seizure, who was not the officer empowered to pass an order under sub-section (5) of Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, retained seized documents beyond the 15-day limit and subsequently proposed further retention of said documents beyond 180 days.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the officer, lacking the specific authority to pass an order under sub-section (5), could not legally retain the seized documents beyond 15 days and was therefore unable to initiate a proposal for further retention beyond 180 days.
Issues: Whether an officer authorized for search and seizure, but not empowered to pass an order under Section 132(5), has the authority to retain seized documents beyond 15 days or propose further retention beyond 180 days.
Ratio Decidendi: The power to retain seized documents beyond 15 days and the authority to propose further retention beyond 180 days are restricted to the officer who is empowered to pass an order under sub-section (5) of Section 132.
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.
Facts of the case:
An officer authorized to conduct search and seizure, who was not the officer empowered to pass an order under sub-section (5) of Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, retained seized documents beyond the 15-day limit and subsequently proposed further retention of said documents beyond 180 days.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the officer, lacking the specific authority to pass an order under sub-section (5), could not legally retain the seized documents beyond 15 days and was therefore unable to initiate a proposal for further retention beyond 180 days.
Issues: Whether an officer authorized for search and seizure, but not empowered to pass an order under Section 132(5), has the authority to retain seized documents beyond 15 days or propose further retention beyond 180 days.
Ratio Decidendi: The power to retain seized documents beyond 15 days and the authority to propose further retention beyond 180 days are restricted to the officer who is empowered to pass an order under sub-section (5) of Section 132.
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.
Retention - The court agreed with the High Court's finding that an Assistant Director of Inspection cannot retain seized documents beyond 15 days or propose further retention beyond 180 days if they are not the Income Tax Officer authorized to pass orders under Section 132(5).
B.N.KIRPAL, J.
(1) HAVING heard the counsel for the parties and in view of the provisions of sub-section (9-A) of Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, we are in agreement with the judgment of the High Court reported as K.V. Krishnaswamy Naidu & Co. v. CIT that the Assistant Director of Inspection who was the authorised officer for the purposes of carrying out search and seizure but was not the Income Tax Officer who could pass an order under sub-section (5) of Section 132 could not retain the seized documents etc. beyond 15 days and, therefore, he could not moot a proposal under sub-section (8) for further retention of the documents beyond 180 days. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.