RAMAKRISHANA TALKIES Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER VIJAYAWADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This write petition mainly raises a question relating to the return of impounded account books and documents under s. 131(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961.

(2.) The Inspectors of Income-tax conducted a survey under s. 133A of the I.T. Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, on 18/04/1984, and they listed various documents found in the cinema business premises of the petitioner. Summons were issued to the petitioner to produce the said listed documents and registers at the office of the responded on 19/04/1984. In response to the summons, the petitioner produced his account books on 19/04/1984, and on that day the respondent impounded the said books under s. 131(3) of the Act stating that there was variance between the daily collection reports given to the petitioner to the sales tax authorities and the collection reports given by the petitioner to the sales tax authorities and the collection reports given to the distributors of the cinema on various dates and that the books were required for facilitating verification and that they are, therefore, impounded until furthers orders. The matter was posted again to 24/04/1984, on which date the respondent issued summons to the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer for production of the daily collection reports, etc., seized from the distributors. As the petitioner and his representatives were not present on 24/04/1984, the respondent adjourned the case to 26/04/1984, on which date the A.C.T.O. and the assessee were also present. A statemrnt was recorded from the assessee as well as from the A.C.T.O. on that day. It appears that the petitioner did not choose to cross-examine the A.C.T.O.

(3.) On 11/05/1984, the petitioner filed an application before the respondent requesting (1) for copies of the D.C. Rs. (Daily Collection Reports) seized by the sales-tax authorities; (2) copy of petitioners sworn deposition; (3) release of the impounded account books and the D.C. Rs., etc.; and (4) depositions taken form the distributors and requesting for stay of the assessment proceedings till such time as the requests of the petitioner in that above application were complied with. A reply was issued by the respondent on 26/06/1984. The respondent thereafter gathered further information from the distributors and the sales tax authorities and posted the case for hearing to 16/07/1984. In the meantime, the petitioner filed another application ona 13/07/1984, for return of books and for supply of the copies of the material seized by the sales tax authorities. There were further exchange of letters between the petitioner and the respondent thereafter. The respondent expressed his inability to return the books to the petitioner on the ground that they were impounded and that the purpose or which they were impounded was not completed.