1975 Supreme(P&H) 101

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Muni Lal Verma, J.
Om Parkash Jindal
Versus
Union Of India
Civil Writ No. 6577 of 1974,
Decided On : JULY 17, 1975

The attachment of ornaments, etc., referred to above was not countenanced by the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 132, and had been directed by the authorised officers in the error of judgment, the same has to be lifted.

Headnote:

INCOME TAX - Section 132 - Search and seizure - Authorisation - Information - Reason to believe - Seizure - Attachment - Legality - Held, that the attachment of ornaments, etc., referred to above was not countenanced by the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 132, and had been directed by the authorised officers in the error of judgment, the same has to be lifted.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, Shri Om Parkash Jindal and his wife, Smt Savitri Devi, along with their son, Prithvi Raj Jindal, and his wife, Smt. Sachita Devi, were income-tax assessees. During a search of the Jindal House, situate at Delhi Road, Model Town, Hissar, on June 6, 1974, 31 items of ornaments and jewellery were found in the bed-cum-store room of Shri Om Parkash Jindal. Seventeen items of ornaments and jewellery were recovered from another portion of the ground floor occupied by Shri Om Parkash Jindal. Another five items of ornaments and jewellery and currency notes of the value of Rs. 708 and 18 silver coins of rupee one each were also recovered from the portion of the premises in occupation of the petitioner, Shri Om Parkash Jindal. Four items of ornaments were found from the bedroom of Shri Prithvi Raj Jindal. The authorised officers placed all these ornaments and jewellery, etc., in two boxes, sealed the same and then placed the said boxes in a Godrej almirah lying in the premises. It (Godrej almirah) was also locked and sealed. The keys of the said Godrej almirah as well as of the said two boxes were taken away by them, and they served the order under Section 132(3) of the Act upon Shri Om Parkash Jindal, directing him not to remove, part with or otherwise deal with the said jewellery, ornaments, etc., without their previous permission. The statement of Shri Om Parkash Jiudal was also recorded by them under Section 132(4) of the Act, wherein he represented that 32 ornaments of annexure "D-I" belonged to his wife and the four ornaments of annexure "D-II" belonged to his snn and daughter-in-law and 17 items of ornaments of annexure "D-III" belonged to Shri Bajrang Lal who had placed the same with him for safe custody, and the 5 ornaments, G. C. notes and silver coins of annexure "D-TV" belonged to Chum Lal, who is the brother of Bajrang Lal, and had placed the same with him for safe custody.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the attachment of ornaments, etc., referred to above was not countenanced by the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 132, and had been directed by the authorised officers in the error of judgment, the same has to be lifted.

Issues: Whether the attachment of ornaments, etc., referred to above was countenanced by the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 132?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the attachment of ornaments, etc., referred to above was not countenanced by the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 132, and had been directed by the authorised officers in the error of judgment, the same has to be lifted. The court observed that the authorised officers had proceeded to attach ornaments, etc., on June 6, 1974, and July 12, 1974, under Sub-section (3) of Section 132, believing that the same could not be said to be undisclosed property or otherwise without verification of the statement of Shri Om Parkash Jindal, petitioner, recorded on June 6, 1974. Therefore, the court was of the view that the acts of the authorised officers in attaching ornaments, etc., in the case in hand on June 6, 1974, or on July 12, 1974, had been committed in error of judgment, though the court had no doubt in its mind that the same were not countenanced by the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 132.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed only to the extent that the authorised officers were directed to remove the seals and locks of the wooden almirah and also of the boxes contained therein and restore the ornaments, jewellery, etc., of annexures "D-I", "D-II", "D-III" and "D-IV" to Shri Om Parkash Jindal, petitioner, within 10 days from the date of the judgment. The authorised officers were also permitted to collect material and decide on the basis of it and the material already collected by them, within the said 10 days, as to whether they have reason to believe that the ornaments, jewellery, etc., of the aforesaid four annexures are undisclosed property. If they found it so, they would be at liberty to proceed in the matter according to law.