RAM SAROOP PAWAN KUMAR Vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order, annex. P-4, and the issuance of a direction to the respondent for the return of the books enumerated in annex. P-3.

(2.) THE petitioner, M/s, Ram Saroop Pa wan Kumar, is a registered partnership concern engaged in the wholesale cloth business at Jullundur City. Its business premises were surveyed on August 30, 1979, by a survey party headed by Mrs. Baljit Bains, ITO, District 1 (1), Jullundur. According to the allegations in the petition, the survey commenced at 11. 00 A. M. and continued up to 9. 15 P. M. About the close of the survey at 9. 00 P. M. Pawan Kumar, a partner of the firm, was served with a notice, annex. P-2, under Section 131 of the I. T. Act, 1961, to produce the documents mentioned in annex. P-3 and simultaneously these books were collected by the raiding party and taken away along with them. It was further pleaded that the books were seized and taken away in violation of the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 133a but to circumvent the said provisions a notice under Sub-section (1) was prepared and served and the order passed under Sub-section (3) of Section 131 of the Act.

(3.) THE petition has been contested by the ITO, who, while controverting all the material allegations regarding seizure and impounding of documents, pleaded, that the survey had come to an end at 7. 30 P. M. , and it was thereafter that from the camp office, a notice under Section 131 (1) was issued invoking the provisions of Sub-section (6) of Section 133a as Pawan Kumar, a partner of the firm, evaded to give satisfactory reply regarding certain account books. It was further claimed that the books were duly produced by Pawan Kumar in response to the notice, Ex. P-2, and the same were thereafter impounded by the ITO by virtue of the provisions of Section 131 (3) of the Act.