1. Search and seizure under Section 132, Income Tax Act, 1961 — retention of seized documents by an Assistant Director of Inspection. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 105
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N.Kirpal : S.P.Kurdukar
Commissioner Of Income Tax
Versus
K.V.Krishnaswamy Naidu And Company
Case No. : 232 of 1986
Date of Decision : 1/22/98
An officer authorized for search and seizure who is not empowered to pass an order under Section 132(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot retain seized documents beyond 15 days or propose their further retention beyond 180 days.
Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 132, sub-sections (5), (8) and (9-A) - Search and seizure - Retention of seized documents - An authorized officer for the purposes of carrying out search and seizure who is not the officer empowered to pass an order under sub-section (5) cannot retain seized documents beyond 15 days - Consequently, such officer is not competent to moot a proposal under sub-section (8) for further retention of the documents beyond 180 days. (Para 1)
Facts of the case:
An officer authorized to conduct search and seizure, who was not the officer empowered to pass an order under sub-section (5) of Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, retained seized documents beyond the 15-day limit and subsequently proposed further retention of said documents beyond 180 days.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the officer, lacking the specific authority to pass an order under sub-section (5), could not legally retain the seized documents beyond 15 days and was therefore unable to initiate a proposal for further retention beyond 180 days.
Issues: Whether an officer authorized for search and seizure, but not empowered to pass an order under Section 132(5), has the authority to retain seized documents beyond 15 days or propose further retention beyond 180 days.
Ratio Decidendi: The power to retain seized documents beyond 15 days and the authority to propose further retention beyond 180 days are restricted to the officer who is empowered to pass an order under sub-section (5) of Section 132.
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
tax law
-
income tax
-
search and seizure
- retention of documents (Para 1)
-
search and seizure
-
income tax
Table of Contents
2. Whether an officer authorized for search and seizure but not empowered to pass orders under Section 132(5) can retain documents beyond 15 or 180 days. (Para 1 )
3. An Assistant Director of Inspection authorized for search and seizure but not empowered to pass orders under Section 132(5) cannot retain seized documents beyond 15 days. (Para 1 )
4. An officer not empowered to pass an order under Section 132(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot retain seized documents beyond 15 days or propose retention beyond 180 days. (Para 1 )
5. Appeal dismissed with costs. (Para 1 )
6. Can an officer authorized for search and seizure, but not empowered to pass an order under Section 132(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, retain documents beyond 15 days?
No, an Assistant Director of Inspection who is the authorized officer for search and seizure but not the Income Tax Officer empowered to pass an order under sub-section (5) of Section 132 cannot retain seized documents beyond 15 days. (Para 1 )
7. Is an officer not empowered to pass an order under Section 132(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, authorized to propose further retention of documents beyond 180 days?
No, an officer who is not empowered to pass an order under sub-section (5) of Section 132 cannot moot a proposal under sub-section (8) for the further retention of documents beyond 180 days. (Para 1 )
B.N.KIRPAL, J.
(1) HAVING heard the counsel for the parties and in view of the provisions of sub-section (9-A) of Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, we are in agreement with the judgment of the High Court reported as K.V. Krishnaswamy Naidu & Co. v. CIT that the Assistant Director of Inspection who was the authorised officer for the purposes of carrying out search and seizure but was not the Income Tax Officer who could pass an order under sub-section (5) of Section 132 could not retain the seized documents etc. beyond 15 days and, therefore, he could not moot a proposal under sub-section (8) for further retention of the documents beyond 180 days. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.
