High Court Of Allahabad
Shambhu Nath Chakravarti vs. Deputy Director Of Investigation, Income Tax & Ors.
Sections 132, 132(5)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. & R.A. Sharma, J.
Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 486 of 1990
10th January, 1991
B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, C. J.:
The petitioner is asking for issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the search proceedings and notices issued under s. 132 of the IT Act. While it is not necessary to mention that cash of about Rs. 7,50,000 was seized from certain bank lockers standing in the name of the petitioner’s wife and minor daughters. The seizure was effected under s. 132 (1) of the Act. Thereafter, proceedings have been taken and an order has been passed under sub-s. (5) thereof. Against this order, an appeal is provided. Final assessment will also be made in due course. Under the circumstances, it would not be appropriate to go into the several contentions raised, namely, whether the authorities had material before them to enable them to form the requisite belief which alone empowers the authority to take action under sub-s.(1) of s. 132, or whether the authorities were justified in not releasing the amount for payment as requested by the petitioner. A copy of the order passed under s. 132 has been placed before us according to which the total tax liability is more than Rs. 15,00,000 and if the penalty amount is included, then the liability is more than Rs. 20,00,000. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that no order can be passed except to observe that it will be open to the petitioner to urge all such points available to him in law in the appeal provided by law against an order passed under sub-s. (5) of s. 132 of the Act. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
[Citation: 193 ITR 424]