GANGA PRASAD MAHESHWARI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FAMILY feud between real brothers led to the filing of a First Information Report on October 3, 1970, by Chaturbhuj Das Maheshwari, for the theft of jewellery, against petitioner No. 1, his own brother, petitioner No. 2, wife of petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 3, their son-in-law. All of them were tried under Sections 379/411/424 of the IPC. On 14th July, they were acquitted and it was held that no theft of any property belonging to the informant took place from his room No. 77, Rani Mandi, Allahabad, and that he had not kept any valuables in his almirahs in the said house. The ornaments and jewellery (Exs. 1 to 82) were not proved to have been recovered from any hiding place from the house of Ganga Prasad or from the possession of Ram Gopal. In the operative portion of the order a direction was issued. The property Exs. 1 to 84 should be returned to Ganga Prasad under intimation to the I.T. authorities after the expiry of the period of appeal, if no appeal was filed. The criminal adven- ture of Chaturbhuj Das, having miserably failed, he knocked at the door of income-tax department and is alleged to have sent a written complaint to the Govt. of India and the CIT, Allahabad, under the fake name of Dinesh Chandra Sahu that the petitioner was possessed of three hundred tolas of of gold, which he claimed, in the criminal proceedings, to have received in a family partition, but failed to disclose it or file any return under the W.T. Act. This set the ball rolling for proceedings under Section 132A of the I.T. Act, and it is the validity of these proceedings which is under challenge in this petition.

(2.) IT appears, while the complaint of Sahu was still in the process of examination in the office of the Commissioner, a letter was received from the Under Secretary to the Govt. of India to make necessary inquiries regarding the evasion of wealth-tax by the petitioner. This letter along with the complaint, which was already pending in the office of the Commissioner, was forwarded by the IAC to the Assistant Director of Inspection (Intelligence), in charge of a cell maintained in the I.T. office for probing such matters, for investigation and report. In pursuance of it the Assistant Director summoned the petitioner and recorded his statement on oath on August 4. 1978. This statement is on record. IT is in two parts. In the first, the petitioner was asked whether he was an assessee under the I.T. or the W.T. Act and whether the jewellery was seized from him and why. IT was stated by the petitioner that he was not an assessee under either of the Acts because he was below the taxable limit. He admitted that the jewellery which was in the custody of the Chief Judicial Magistrate was seized from him on his brother's complaint who was inimical to him but he was acquitted. Then starts the second part which is headed, " Further ".

(3.) IN the course of time, it was felt that at times the jewellery or bullion or money may be in the custody of any officer or court. Therefore, in 1975, Section 132 was amended further**, the old Section 132A was renumbered as Section 132B and a new section was inserted as Section 132A. Sub-clause (c) of this section which is relevant is quoted below :