SANTOSH SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common judgment, we propose to dispose of the two identical writ petitions analogously, because these relate to the same subject matter and transaction.

(2.) BROADLY speaking, two questions arise for consideration in these two writ petitions. Firstly, as to whether the Revenue was right in appropriating to itself temporarily the amount of Rs. 6 lakh seized by it during the search carried out at the premises of the petitioner until an order in terms of Section 132(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed and, secondly, whether the search and seizure as ordered in terms of Section 132(1)(c) of the Act and the consequential orders passed under Section 132(5) of the Act by the Assessing Officer and the appellate order passed by the Commissioner under Section 132(12) of the Act were correct or not?

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it was illegal and inappropriate on the part of the Revenue to have taken the money even temporarily because the money could not have been taken until and unless an order under Section 132(5) of the Act was passed. According to him, all that the Revenue could do was to make an order in terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 132 of the Act, which empowers the Revenue to issue direction to the holder of the money not to part with the money.