AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings u/s 132(1) of the income tax Act, 1961 (''the Act'').
The facts are that a search was carried out at the petitioner''s residence on 22-9-1992 and then some assets were seized. Thereafter, an order u/s 132(5) was passed on 18-1-1993.
Aggrieved, the petitioner made an application under sub-section (11) of section 132 before the Commissioner, which is said to be still pending.
The case of the petitioner is that the search was conducted whimsically without any material and without any good information by the respondents and, therefore, authorisation to conduct the search and to make seizure was wholly illegal.
The learned standing counsel produced records before us pertaining to authorisation which we have gone thoroughly carefully. In the course of arguments, the learned counsel for petitioner revealed certain important facts that assessment for the assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94 have been made subsequent to the date of search and seizure having treated the seized assets as undisclosed.
Aggrieved by the assessment order, the petitioner preferred an appeal for the year 1992-93. It is stated that the appeal has been decided and refund was directed by the appellate authority. Appeal against the assessment order relating to the assessment year 1993-94 is still pending. It is averred by the learned counsel for the petitioner that documents, books, etc., seized during search and seizure operation, have not yet been returned though refund was ordered by the appellate authority for the assessment year 1992-93.
This grievance is entirely different and the petitioner may approach the appropriate authority for retrieving the documents, books of account etc., seized during search and seizure operation.
On these facts, we are of the view that the question whether there was proper authorisation to make search and seizure, has become academic and the writ petition has become infructuous. For the reasons, the writ petition is disposed of with the observation that the petitioner may make an application to an appropriate authority for returning the documents, books, etc., which will be disposed of by that authority expeditiously in accordance with law.