Skip to main content

Tax Raids Under IT Act, 1956

The numbers of search warrants executed under the Income Tax Act, 1961 during the years 2010-11, 2011-12 and the current year are as under:


Period
Number of warrants executed
2010-11
4852
2011-12
5260
2012-13*
1540
(upto Sept. 2012)

                                  *figures are provisional

Income Tax Department conducts search and seizure actions based on credible information relating to ‘persons’, which include individuals, Hindu undivided families (HUFs), firms, companies, association of persons (AoPs), body of individuals (BoIs), local authorities and any artificial juridical person, who satisfy any of the conditions specified in Section 132 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As these persons are engaged in diversified businesses/professions across different sectors spread all over the country, Person-wise/sector-wise details of such operations are not separately maintained. However, data regarding number of search warrants executed is maintained as per the particulars given in answer to above.

As per the provisions of the Income Tax Act 1961, immovable properties cannot be seized during search and seizure actions. The details of assets seized by the Income Tax Department during search and seizure actions during the above mentioned financial years are as under:

Financial Year           Cash (in          Jewellery (in   Other Assets (in         Total Assets (in
                                    Rs. crore)       Rs. crore)       Rs. crore)                   Rs. crore)

2010-11                       440.28             184.15             150.55                         774.98
2011-12                       499.9               271.39             134.3                           905.60
2012-13*                     173.39             71.29               39.61                           290.29
(upto Sept. 2012)
 *figures are provisional

Search proceedings are followed by quasi judicial proceedings, which involve detailed examination of the seized documents. The evidence gathered during the search proceedings are used in assessment and re-assessment of incomes of the persons in whose cases, search actions are undertaken. The amount of tax evaded is quantified after completion of assessment/re-assessment. Any existing liability and the demand arising out of tax/interest/penalty on account of undisclosed income detected during search action, is recovered from the assets seized during search operations. Any assets or its proceeds, which remain after these liabilities have been discharged, are released. Assets may be released with the prior approval of the Commissioners of Income Tax if conditions specified in Section 132 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are met. Such details are available with Assessing Officers, spread all over the country and thus, not maintained centrally.

 The cash seized during searches is deposited in the Government exchequer. However, other assets are dealt with, for application towards the liability as per provisions of Section 132 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more