BAPURAO Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Bapurao, an assessee under the IT Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), calls in question the two orders (Annexures 'B' and 'C') made by respondents Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, purporting to act under the provisions of S. 132 of the Act.

(2.) PURSUANT to a warrant of authorisation issued by the Director of IT (Inv.), Pune, the respondent No. 1 Asstt. Director of Income Tax (Inv.) purporting to act under S. 132(1) of the Act, conducted search at the residential premises of the petitioner situated at 47, Gulmohar Colony, Indore, on 19th March, 1990, and 20th March, 1990 (vide Panchnama Annexure 'A'). Respondent No. 1 was of the view that undisclosed investment has been made in certain immovable properties as enumerated in the order Annexure B and since it was not practical or feasible to take possession of those properties, he passed prohibitory order Annexure B under S. 132(1) of the Act directing the petitioner not to part with or dispose of the said properties without his permission. Respondent No. 2 to whom jurisdiction under S. 132 was later on transferred, after necessary enquiry as envisaged under S. 132(5), on 16th July, 1990, passed impugned order Annexure 'C' endorsing the order Annexure 'B' and directing retention of the said immovable properties.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the provisions of S. 132, I am clearly of the view that the entire action taken by the respondents No. 1 and 2 was without jurisdiction.