SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hemant Gupta, V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.
Principal Director Of Income Tax (Investigation) & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Laljibhai Kanjibhai Mandalia – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4081 of 2022 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 25046 of 2019)
Decided On : 13-07-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. order quashing search warrant challenged. (Para 1) |
| 2. assessee's investment challenged as fishing enquiry. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. financial transactions detail leading to search. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 4. authorization for search was based on recorded belief. (Para 5) |
| 5. high court's detailed reasoning on the searches. (Para 7) |
| 6. arguments regarding the legal standards for search validity. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 7. court's analysis of conduct under judicial review. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 8. principles governing search and seize compliance. (Para 15 , 22) |
| 9. judicial restraint in administrative actions recognized. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 10. court affirms the authority of the revenue for searches. (Para 26 , 27 , 34) |
JUDGMENT :
1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order dated 22.02.2019 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad whereby the warrant of authorization dated 07.08.2018 issued by the appellant1[For short, ‘Revenue’] under Section 132 of the INCOME TAX ACT ,19612[For short, ‘Act’] was quashed. Consequently, all actions taken pursuant to such warrant of authorization were ordered to be rendered invalid.
2. The respondent3[For short, ‘Assessee’] in its writ petition challenged the act of authorization for search and seizure on the ground that it is a fishing enquiry and the conditions precedent as specified in Section 132 of the Act are not satisfied. It is the stand of the assessee that he was looking for an avenue to invest some money and the M/s. Goan Recreation Clubs Private Ltd4[For short, ‘Company’]. was in need of finance for setting up of its business and hence consequently approached the assessee herein for a loan. As a security, the borrower company offered that another company would give its property to the assessee. It may be noticed that there is no allegation of mala-fides against the officers of the Revenue.
3. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Revenue, giving the history of transaction, it was stated that the “chain of events raised credible doubt on the transaction entered into by the petitioner (assessee) with the company in question as it is the familiar modus operandi being practiced by the entry operators”. It was also stated that the assessee was not expected to comply with the notice of the Revenue as the assessee would have brought the alibi of jurisdiction to evade or not comply with the notice. It was in the interest of revenue that it was not expected to disclose to any outside agency/body or to any of the members directly or indirectly involved in the cob-web of financial transactions with the core groups, viz. Sarju Sharma and associated group of companies. Any inkling of action contemplated by the Revenue was likely to compromise the confidentiality and secrecy of the case intact. It was further stated that the apparent investment made by the assessee was found to be not a judicious investment choice from the point of view of a prudent businessman as the company to which loan was provided by the assessee had no established business, no goodwill in the market, nor was it enlisted in any of the stock exchanges, nor did the assessee had any financial dealings with the company previously. The quick repayment of loan shows that the investment was not meant to earn steady interest income. The investment and nature of transaction entered into by the assessee was akin to the familiar modus operandi employed by the entry operators to provide an accommodation entry to bring the unaccounted black money to books for brief period to run the business till sufficient fund is generated by running the business or some fund from any other unaccounted source comes later on. This is the angle of the investigative process underway in which trail of the money being paid by the assessee is being investigated.
4. The undisputed facts are that the assessee during the financial year 2016-17 transferred a sum of Rs. 6 crores on 01.06.2016 and Rs. 4 crores on 21.06.2016 to M/s Goan Recreation Clubs Private Ltd. The assessee secu
N.K. Jewellers and Another v. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi
Partap Singh (Dr) v. Director of Enforcement
Phool Chand Bajrang Lal and Anr. v. Income Tax Officer and Anr.
Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (Investigation)
Seth Brothers & Ors. etc.; Vindhya Metal Corporation & Ors; Ajit Jain v. Union of India
Spacewood Furnishers (P) Ltd. v. DG of Income Tax
Tata Cellular v. Union of India
The Income Tax Officer, I Ward, District VI, Calcutta and Ors. v. Lakhmani Mewal Das
Union of India v. Agarwal Iron Industries
Union of India v. Ajit Jain & Anr.
Utkal Suppliers v. Maa Kanak Durga Enterprises
Commissioner of Income Tax, Allahabad and Ors. v. Vindhya Metal Corporation and Ors.
Income Tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle-B, Meerut v. Seth Brothers and Ors.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Rajendra D. Harmalkar
Janak Raj Sharma v. Director of Inspection (Investigation) & Ors.
L.R. Gupta & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
The necessity for authorities to possess credible information to form a reasonable belief before conducting search and seizure under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act is essential for the validity of....
Search and seizure under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act requires credible information that justifies belief, and cannot be based on mere suspicion.
The court upheld the legality of search and seizure under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, asserting that the 'reason to believe' standard is justiciable, but not the adequacy of those grounds.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power under Section 131(1A) of the Income Tax Act is not an independent power, but is for the purpose of making an inquiry and investigati....
A person may only be assessed under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act if they are not the 'searched person'; procedural safeguards must precede assessment actions.
The court held that a petitioner searched under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act cannot be treated as a non-searched person for proceedings under Section 153C, and thus impugned notices issued again....
For invoking Section 153C, the petitioner must not be treated as a non-searched person; proper jurisdiction requires a satisfaction note linking seized documents to undisclosed income of another part....
Searches conducted under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act require valid reasons to believe, which were established in this case, affirming the legality of the searches and seizures.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.