High Court Of Delhi
CIT Vs.Capital Power Systems Ltd.
Section : 132
Badar Durrez Ahmed And Rajiv Shakdher, JJ.
IT Appeal No. 115 Of 200
January 16, 2009
JUDGMENT
Â
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. – The only issue sought to be raised in the present appeal is whether the Jt. Director of IT (Inv.), Unit-VTI, New Delhi was empowered to issue the warrant of authorization for search and seizure operations under s. 132(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’). In a separate decision delivered by us today itself in the case of CIT v. Pawan Kumar Garg (IT Appeal No. 881 of 2008) [reported at [2009] 222 CTR (Delhi) 36—Ed.] we held that there is no notification issued by the CBDT specifically empowering any Jt. Director of IT (Inv.) to authorize action under s. 132(1) of the said Act. We also held that the notification issued on 11th Oct., 1990 by the CBDT empowering certain specified Dy. Directors of IT (Inv.) and Dy. CITs would not, by virtue of the mere redesignation of Dy. Directors of IT as Jt. Directors of IT, as per notification dt. 23rd Oct., 1998 issued by the Central Government under s. 117(1) of the said Act, by itself mean that a Jt. Director of IT is also empowered to authorize action under s. 132(1) of the said Act. A specific notification under s. 132(1) of the said Act would necessarily have to be issued by the CBDT if it wishes to empower any Jt. Director to authorize action to be taken under s. 132(1) of the said Act. In the absence of any such specific empowerment by the Board, we held that the Jt. Director is not empowered to issue any authorisation. Consequently, following the said decision in CIT v. Pawan Kumar Garg (supra), the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.
It is ordered accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
[Citation : 334 ITR 349]
