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

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more