SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(SC) 613

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

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :Raj Bahadur Yadav, Advocate
For the Respondent(s):Arvind P. Datar, Galav C. Sharma, Somanadri Goud Katam, Parthasarthi Mehd., Nitin Thakur, Sarabjit Walia, Sirajuddin Malik, Advocates

Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 132 - The High Court quashed the search and seizure authorization on grounds of fishing enquiry, asserting the Revenue's conditions were unmet - The Revenue, contesting, clarified credible suspicions regarding loans and undisclosed income - Judicial review's scope limited; authorization upheld as bona fide. (Paras 1-34)

(B) Necessity of belief - Officers must have core information to formulate reasons for authorization, but not subjectively; belief must direct and relevant to undisclosed income. (Paras 12, 19)

(C) Judgement calls on administrative character of search powers, distinguishing between relevant belief and mere suspicion; emphasizes discretion limits for judicial review. (Paras 32-34)

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


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top