RUMENA RAHMAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. D. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The petitioner is the Managing Director of the M/s. Rahman : Properties Limited having its registered office at S.S. Road, Lakhtokia, Guwahati. The said company runs a Hotel under the name and style of Hotel Dynasty. On 3.11.97 a group of about 8 to 10 Income Tax Officials led by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Investigation), (respondent No. 3) entered into the office of the Hotel Dynasty and inquired about the petitioner. The said persons identified themselves as Income Tax Officials and stated that they had come to survey the premise under Section 133 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short as the Act). The officers thereafter entered into the office of M/s. Hotel Dynasty M/s. Mohijuli Tea Company Pvt. Limited situated in the same premises and collected records of documents vouchers, books of account from the premises. The above survey continued up to 11.30 PM. In the process of survey, the Income Tax officials collected a large number of files, documents, books of accounts, vouchers etc. form the premises of Hotel Dynasty, M/s. Mohijuli Tea Company Pvt. Limited, M/s Dynasty Walford and M/s Texal Patty Tea Private Limited and prepared an inventory of the documents, books of accounts and other documents and kept them in a separate room and put a paper pasting.

(3.) On the same day after completion of the survey under Section 133 A of the Act a notice under Section 131 of the Act was served on the petitioner and summoned her to attend the office of the respondent No. 3 on 4.11.97 in connection with the case of M/s. Hotel Dynasty. The petitioner accordingly attended the office of the respondent No. 3 thereafter the documents, books of account etc were impounded by the respondent No. 3 under Section 131(3)of the Act.