MAHESH KUMAR GOYAL Vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are assessees having income chargeable to tax. It appears that warrants of authorization dated 19th, 21st and 31st August, 1998 were issued under Section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On 21st August, 1998 search and seizure of the office and residential premises of the petitioners were conducted.

(2.) Articles including cash were seized. A copy of a Panchanama of that date is an annexure to the writ petition. Though the petitioners have challenged the said warrants of authorization, all proceedings of search, seizure and proceedings for retention of the articles, but Mr. R.N. Dutta, learned Advocate submitted at the time of hearing, the challenge of his clients' was confined to the retention of the articles seized based on Section 132(9A) of the said Act as it stood then.

(3.) The admitted position is the search and seizure conducted on 21st August, 1998 resulted in seizure of several articles as made pursuant to the concerned warrants of authorization by an authorized officer who did not have jurisdiction over the petitioners referred to in clauses (a), (b) or (c) of Section 132(1) of the said Act. In the circumstances the said authorized officer was required, under the law in force at that time, to handover the seized articles to the Income Tax Officer having jurisdiction over the petitioners within a period of 15 days of such seizure and thereupon the powers exercisable by the authorized officer under Section 132(8) or (9) would be exercisable by such Income Tax Officer. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit in opposition used by the Revenue it was stated the seizure took place on 21st August, 1998 and the search operation of the group was finally concluded on 31st August, 1998. The articles seized were finally handed over to the Assessing Officer by 25th September, 1998.