COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. TRILOCHAN PRATAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these bunch of appeals, common question of law and facts are involved. Hence, decided by the present common judgment. A search and seizure operation under section 132A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was conducted and certain incriminating materials were seized. The Additional Director (Inv.) required to produce certain documents under section 132A of the Act. A common question of law arose as to whether search action on the basis of the authorization of the Additional Director of Income-tax was permissible or not. The Tribunal relying on a decision of this court dated July 14, 2006, in the case of Raghu Raj Pratap Singh v. Asst. CIT,2008 307 ITR 450 (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5731 of 2004)--since reported in held that the Additional Director had no authority to take action in cases of search and seizure operation and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was justified in quashing the assessment orders. Aggrieved by the same, the Department-appellant has preferred these appeals in this court and the Division Bench was admitted all the appeals on the following substantial question of law:

(2.) Sri D.D. Chopra, appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that under section 132(1) of the Act, prior to its amendment by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009, did not confer power on the Additional Director but by the amendment of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009, the words "Additional Director" has been inserted in section 132(1) of the Act, with effect from June 1, 1994, and the same is applicable in the present appeals.

(3.) Sri Rohit Nandan Shukla, appearing on behalf of the assessee-respondents, disputing the aforesaid amendment and said that the amendment is not lawful and does not cover the case. For this purpose, he relied upon the judgments reported in Tata Motors Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2004 5 SCC 783 and State of Gujarat v. Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni, 1983 2 SCC 33.