High Court Of Allahabad
Shri Ram Hardcore & Allied Industries & Ors. vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr.
Sections 132, 132(8)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. & R.A. Sharma, J.
Civil Misc. Writ Petitions Nos. 380, 673, 674, 675 of 1989
17th July, 1990
Vikram Gulati, for the Petitioner
BY THE COURT :
A common question arises from these writ petitions. A raid was conducted in the premises of the petitioners on January 13, 1986, and certain books of account and documents were seized. The petitioner applied to the authority requesting him to return the books of account, etc., inasmuch as he required them in connection with the sales tax assessment proceedings. The authority replied to the assessee saying that these books cannot be returned but it is open to him to inspect the documents and take notes. Thereupon, the petitioners approached this Court by way of these writ petitions.
2. Now, a contention is raised by learned counsel for the assessee that no order was passed by the authority extending the period of retention as contemplated by sub-s. (8) of s. 132 of the IT Act and, therefore, the retention beyond 180 days is bad and illegal. We, however, find that this contention was never urged before the authority. It is not even clearly raised in the writ petitions. We cannot presume that no such order has been passed. This is a matter for allegation and proof.
In the circumstances, the factual basis is missing so as to apply the principle of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Oriental Rubber Works (1984) 38 CTR (SC) 154 : (1984) 145 ITR 477.
In the circumstances, the writ petitions are dismissed. However, it is made clear that it is open to the petitioners to submit a representation before the authority raising such objections as are open to them in law with respect to the retention of the books, etc., seized by the authority. If any such representation is made within a period of one month from today, the authority shall consider the same and pass orders according to law within one month thereafter. In case the petitioners are aggrieved by any such order, it is open to them to pursue such remedies as are open to them in law. It is stated by Sri Vikram Gulati, learned counsel for the petitioners, that during the pendency of these writ petitions, regular assessment with respect to the asst. yr. 1986-87 was stayed by this Court and unless the said stay order is extended for another period of three months, the assessment may be completed. It is also stated by learned counsel that in Writ Petitions Nos. 673 of 1989, 674 of 1989 and 675 of 1989, the assessment orders have already been made. It is, accordingly, directed that the regular assessment with respect to the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 380 of 1989 shall remain stayed for three months. So far as the other three writ petitions are concerned, it is enough to observe that it is open to the petitioner to adopt such remedies and file such representations as are open to them in law against the orders of assessment.
The writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.
[Citation : 186 ITR 319]