UDAYA SOUNDS Vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Title deeds of the petitioner are retained by the Income Tax department under the colour of a search and seizure for the last more than twenty-two years. Alleging that the retention of the said documents are contrary to law, petitioner has approached this Court seeking directions to return the originals of seven documents of title.

(2.) On 19/12/2001, a search was conducted in the business place as well as in the residence of the Managing Partner of the petitioner under sec. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). During the search, title deeds were seized by the Income Tax Officers. Consequent to the search and seizure, block assessment proceedings for the period 1/4/1995 to 19/12/2001 were launched against the petitioner as per sec. 158 BC of the Act. On 31/12/2003, the assessment proceedings were completed reckoning undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee. On appeal, the quantum of undisclosed income was reduced, thereby allowing the appeal in part. The second appeal preferred by the revenue ended in dismissal, while that filed by the assessee was partly allowed. On appeal to this Court, in I.T.A. No.819 of 2009 and I.T.A. No. 1326 of 2009, this Court directed the assessing officer to refix the undisclosed income at 25% of the originally assessed figure. Petitioner has preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court and it is still pending.

(3.) In the meantime, petitioner alleges that though no order has been recorded by any of the officers as contemplated under sec. 132(8) of the Act, still, the respondents are retaining the seized documents of title for periods beyond 30 days without authority of law. Despite repeated requests of the petitioner and even after several representations, no response could be elicited from the respondents and the documents of title continued to remain with the respondents. In such circumstances, a petition was filed as Ext.P7, seeking a direction to release the originals of the seven documents. Thereafter, an application was filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005, in which a reply was given that the documents are retained due to proceedings pending before the Supreme Court. Since petitioner could not obtain release of the title deeds, this writ petition was preferred seeking a direction to release/return the originals of the seized documents or to compel the respondents to take a decision on the representations filed by the petitioner seeking release of the documents.