REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

BABU LAL Appellant

V/S

Director Of Income -Tax Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

M.P. SHARMA AND ORS. V. SATISH CHANDRA,D.M. DELHI AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
S.D.S. SHIPPING PVT. LTD. V. JAY CONTAINER SERVICES CO. PVT. LTD. AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
M C MUTHIAH VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
A M ALLISON E B SHAWE VS. B L SEN:B L SEN [REFERRED TO]
CALCUTTA DISCOUNT COMPANY LIMITED VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER COMPANIES DISTRICT I CALCUTTA [REFERRED TO]
KHARAK SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
S NARAYANAPPA VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OT INCOME TAX GUJARAT VS. A RAMAN AND CO [REFERRED TO]
INCOME TAX OFFICER SPECIAL INVESTIGATION CIRCLE B MEERUT VS. SETH BROTHERS [REFERRED TO]
CHAMPALAL BINANI VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
MADHYA PRADESH INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER NAGPUR [REFERRED TO]
GOBIND VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
INCOME TAX OFFICER I WARD DISTRICT VI CALCUTTA VS. LAKHMANI MEWAL DAS [REFERRED TO]
MOHINDER SINGH GILL VS. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER NEW DELHI [REFERRED TO]
MANEKA GANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
S GANGA SARAN AND SONS PRIVATE LIMITED CALCUTTA VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA UNION OF INDIA BISWAROOP CHATTERJEE ACHINTA KUMAR BISWAS NABENDU BOSE LAXMI NARAYAN VS. TULSIRAM PATEL:SADANAND JHA:G P KOUSHAL:UNION OF INDIA:STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION ANANTNAG VS. KATIJI [REFERRED TO]
BAKSHI SARDART LAL DEAD VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD SWALLEH VS. THIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE MEERUT [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ANDHRA PRADESH VS. NANDLAL TAHILIANI [REFERRED TO]
RAMJAS FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION A P STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION VS. GAR RE ROLLING MILLS:KOTA SUBBA REDDY [REFERRED TO]
K R SRINIVAS K V RAMANA VS. R M PREMCHAND:R M PREMCHAND [REFERRED TO]
NOORDUDDIN VS. K L ANAND [REFERRED TO]
R RAJAGOPAL ALIAS R R GOPAL VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
INCOME TAX OFFICER CALCUTTA VS. SELECTED DALURBAND COAL CO PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
SRIKRISHNA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. I T O CALCUTTA [REFERRED TO]
BUDDHI KOTA SUBBARAO VS. K PARASARAN [REFERRED TO]
RAMNIKLAL N BHUTTA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ALLAHABAD VS. VINDHYA METAL CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
K K MODI VS. K N MODI [REFERRED TO]
UPEN CHANDRA GOGOI VS. STATE OF ASSAM [REFERRED TO]
SABIA KHAN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
X VS. HOSPITAL Z [REFERRED TO]
JAIN SWETAMBAR TERAPANTHI VID S VS. PHUNDAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
CHIMAJIRAO KANHOJIRAO SHIRKE VS. ORIENTAL FIRE AND GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
SHAMA PRASHANT RAJE VS. GANPATRAO [REFERRED TO]
STATE GOVE HOUSELESS HARIJAN EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
LIFE INSSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. ASHA GOEL [REFERRED TO]
ROSHAN DEEN VS. PREETI LAL [REFERRED TO]
HARYANA FINANCIAL CORPORATION VS. JAGDAMBA OIL MILLS [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL RAHMAN VS. PRASONY BAI [REFERRED TO]
PEOPLES UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SHARDA VS. DHARMPAL [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
DISTT REGISTRAR and COLLECTOR VS. CANARA BANK [REFERRED TO]
R.L. GUPTA V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
AJIT JAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
GANGA PRASAD MAHESHWARI VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [REFERRED TO]
NAND LAL TAHILIANI VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [REFERRED TO]
SUSHIL RASTOGI VS. DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATIONS INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT [REFERRED TO]
RAVI IRON INDUSTRIES VS. DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATION [REFERRED TO]
KAVITA AGARWAL VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX INVESTIGATION [REFERRED TO]
ANITA SAHAL VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner -partnership Firm for quashing the warrant of authorization dated 20.03.1999 (Annex.6) issued under the provisions of Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and further for directing the respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 3,06,00,000/ - (Rupees Three Crores Six Lakh Only) to the petitioner -firm.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case as given by the petitioner are that the petitioner -Firm has 12 partners and the Deed of Partnership had been executed on 27.02.1999. The same stood registered with the Registrar of Firms, Allahabad on 6th March, 1999. The petitioner -Firm deposited CDRs/Banker Cheques worth Rs. 3,06,00,000/ - with the District Excise Officer, Rewa on 10th March, 1999 as security to enable the Firm to participate in the auction for allotment of privilege of selling country -made liquor in certain parts of the State of Madhya Pradesh. The said CDRs/Banker Cheques etc. had been seized by the Income Tax authorities on 20th March, 1999. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) SHRI Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Revenue has vehemently opposed the petition submitting that the firm is bogus; it never came into existence; it had no concern with the said FDRs/Banker Cheques etc.; search and seizure had been strictly in accordance with the statutory provisions; no fault can be found with the same; the person concerned had been assessed also under the provisions of Chapter XIV -B; notices under Section 158BC of the Act were issued; none of them turned up; the assessment orders dated 23.03.2001 had been passed against the person concerned; the persons aggrieved/assessees have filed appeals which are pending before the Appellate Authorities. The warrant of authorization which is sought to be quashed is not a part of the record, therefore, the question of its quashing does not arise; what has been challenged in the writ petition is the Panchnama which cannot be a subject matter of the writ jurisdiction nor it can be quashed; petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands; even if there had been any procedural defect in the search and seizure, then too unless the Court reaches the conclusion that it was not bona fide, the Court should not interfere in its equitable discretionary jurisdiction; there was sufficient material in the possession of the authorities on the basis of which an opinion was objectively formed; there were reasons to believe that the assets had not been and would not be disclosed; the authorization etc. had been strictly in compliance of the statutory provisions. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

Click here to view full judgment.

BABU LAL Vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address