Skip to main content

Authorities need not disclose the ‘reason to believe’ or ‘reason to suspect’ for conducting search

In M/s N. K. Jewellers vs. CIT, in the year 2000, one of the assessee’s employee was found in possession of Rs.30 lacs cash pursuant to search carried by Railway Police (‘GRP’) while returning by train. The cash was requisitioned and seized u/s 132A of the Income Tax Act. Consequently,  block assessment proceeding was initiated against assessee u/s. 158BD treating the same as assessee’s concealed income. The assessees’ main contention was that the search proceedings initiated u/s 132 are invalid and that the block assessment proceedings are without jurisdiction since it cannot be based on a search conducted on a train by the police authorities. 

The order was confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal and the High Court later. 

The Supreme Court held that the plea that the search proceedings initiated u/s 132 are invalid and that the block assessment proceedings are without jurisdiction cannot be entertained because s. 132A provides that the 'reason to believe' or 'reason to suspect', as the case may be, shall not be disclosed to any person or any authority or the Appellate Tribunal as recorded by Income Tax Authority u/s 132 or 132A in view of the recent amendment to the provision vide the Finance Act, 2017. 

Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/sc-confirms-block-assessment-since-reasons-believe-shall-not-disclosed-search-proceedings/11506/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Taxscan+%28Top+Stories+%E2%80%93+Taxscan+%7C+Simplifying+Tax+Laws%29

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

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

NCLT - Board meetings by video-conferencing

In Achintya Kumar Barua vs. Ranjit Barthkur, the NCLAT has held recently that if any director desires to attend board meetings by video conferencing, the company is bound to allow attendance in this manner. In other words, it is not up to the company or at the discretion of the Chairman/Company Secretary whether or not to allow attendance by video conferencing. The right and option is with any director who so desires. NCLAT has held that the words of Section 173(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 are clear on this. There are, of course, some specified resolutions which cannot be considered in a meeting held by video-conference. However, a proviso inserted to Section 173(2) by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2017, though not yet brought into effect, says that even in respect of these matters, if the required quorum is physically present, other directors can attend and participate by video-conferencing.
Post a Comment
Read more

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