High Court Of Delhi
KANWAL SHAMSHER SINGH - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil 992 of 1973
Decided On : 01/16/1974
INCOME TAX - Seizure of assets - Interpretation of section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Meaning of 'seizure' - Whether the sealing of lockers and issuance of restraint order under section 132(3) amounts to seizure - Held, no.
Fact of the Case:
During a search of the petitioner's residence, an Income-tax Officer sealed a steel almirah and two lockers. The keys of the lockers were taken into possession and the lockers were sealed. The petitioner contended that the contents of the lockers were seized and since no order under section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was made within 90 days, she was entitled to their release.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the mere taking over of the keys of the lockers and the issuance of the restraint order under section 132(3) did not amount to dispossession of the petitioner in respect of their contents. The contents of the lockers remained, in fact and in law, in the same state as to their possession and custody as they were before. These acts of the authorized officer did have the effect of disabiling the petitioner from dealing with the contents of the lockers but they did not amount to the same being taken over by the authorized officer on behalf of the Department.
Issues: Whether the sealing of lockers and issuance of restraint order under section 132(3) amounts to seizure of the contents of the lockers.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted the term 'seizure' under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and held that it involves a deprivation of possession and not merely of custody. The Court further held that the authorized officer did not take possession of the contents of the lockers and they remained in the same state as to their possession and custody as they were before. Therefore, the sealing of the lockers and issuance of the restraint order under section 132(3) did not amount to seizure of the contents of the lockers.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the sealing of the contents of the lockers and the issuance of the restraint order under section 132(3) on the Bank by the authorized officer did not amount to seizure of the contents of the lockers.
( 1 ) ON February 2, 1973 an officer of the Income-Tax Department duly authorised by the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi (Central) under section 132 (1) of the Incometax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called "the Act)" carried out search of the residence of the petitioner. He sealed a steel almirah in the premises. A list of articles found in the almirah was prepared and they were put in two packets and sealed. During the search he also found keys of two lockers of the Delhi Safe Deposite Company. One of these lockers No. 2046 stood in the name of the petitioner and the other, bearing No. 1799, was in the joint names of the petitioner and her daughter Mrs. Mala Singh. Both these lockers were scaled. On February 7, 1973 the lockers were opened in the presence of the petitioner and inventories of their contents were prepared and orders under sub-section (3) of section 132 were issued to the Bank restraining it from parting with or allowing the contents to be removed. Sub-section (5) of section 132 of the Act provides that the Incometax officer, after affording a reasonable opportunity to the person concerned of being heard and making such enquiry as may be prescribed, shall within ninety days of the seizure, make an order, with the previous approval of the Commissioner, estimating the undisclosed income and calculating the amount of tax in terms of the sub-section on this income and specifying the amount that would be required to satisfy any existing liability under the Act. The sub-section further provides that the Income-Tax Officer shall retain in his custody the seized assets or part thereof as are in his opinion sufficient to satisfy the dues so calculated "and forthwith release the remaining portion if any, of the assets to the person from whose custody they were seized". The petitioner contends that contents of the two lockers were seized by the authorised officer but after seizure of these assets the Income-Tax Officer failed to make an order within the prescribed period of ninety days and she, is therefore, entieled to a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the concerned authorities to release the said assets, and to a declaration that the seizure of the assets from the lockers was illegal. She has also prayed for such other order or direction as may be considered necessary. Respondents to the petition are Union of India, Commissioner of Income-Tax, Assistant Director of Inspection and the Income-tax Officer as respondents 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively.
( 2 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed by Shri S. R. Gupta. Income-Tax Officer, it is stated that consequent upon an information received by the Commissioner of Income-Tax that there was reason to believe that the petitioner was possessed of money, bullion, jewellery etc. which had not been disclosed for the purpose of income-tax, an authorisation under section 132 was issued to carry out search and seizure at the residential premises of the petitioner. On search being taken, jewellery found in the steel almirah was seized and keys of the two lockers were taken into possession and the lockers were sealed. The sealed lockers were thereafter opened on February 7, 1973 and inventories of their contents were prepared. In respect of one of these two lockers, No. 2046 the petitioner on being examined under subsection (4) of section 132, stated that the jewellery and money in this locker belonged to her daughter, Mrs. Mala Singh, except one pair of ear tops which was stated to belong to one Mrs. Mohini Puri In respect of the second locker No. 1799 the petitioner stated that some items in it belonged to her daughter Mrs. Mala Singh and that some other items belonged to the H. U. F. of which she and her brother Shri A. S. Dua were members. These statements of the petitioner, the affidavit says, could not be immediately verified and, therefore, the contents of the two lockers could not be seized and in these circumstances the auth
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.