POORAN MAL ETC vs. DIRECTOR OF INSPECTION (INVESTIGATION) OF INCOME-TAX MAYUR BHAVAN, NEW DELHI & OTHERS.

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 446/1971Supreme Court[1974] 2 S.C.R. 70414 December 1973Bench: 5 JudgesAuthor: A.N. RAY, D.G. PALEKAR, Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, A. ALAGIRISWAMI, P.N. BHAGWATI MAL ETC.27 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the provisions of Section 132 and Rule 112 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to search and seizure, are not violative of Articles 19(1)(f) and (g). The Court reasoned that restrictions on these freedoms are justifiable in the interest of the community to prevent tax evasion, and the safeguards provided are adequate, akin to those in the Criminal Procedure Code, rendering the temporary restrictions reasonable. Regarding Section 132(5), the Court found it not confiscatory, noting that seized assets can be released upon satisfactory arrangements for tax payment and excess collections are refundable. The Court rejected the Article 14 challenge, stating that the procedure under Section 132 is applied to all evaders where there is a belief of undisclosed income, and the difference in procedure is based on the utility of search for gathering information, not arbitrary discrimination. Evidence obtained from a search, even if irregular, is admissible if relevant, as there is no constitutional or legal prohibition against its use. The Director of Inspection can entertain a "reason to believe" for ordering a search even if an assessment is completed, provided there is material to support the belief, as demonstrated by the construction of a large godown without corresponding entries in books. Seizure of irrelevant documents along with relevant ones does not invalidate the search; it is at most an irregularity. The Court dismissed the writ petitions and appeals.

What were the facts?

The Supreme Court heard two writ petitions under Article 32 and two appeals from Delhi High Court orders under Article 226. The petitioners/appellants sought relief concerning searches and seizures of account books, documents, cash, jewellery, and valuables conducted by Income Tax authorities under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The validity of Section 132(1) and (5) and Rule 112(A) was challenged for allegedly violating Articles 14, 19(1)(f), 19(1)(g), and 31 of the Constitution. A writ of prohibition to prevent the use of seized documents was also sought. The actual searches were challenged for contravening Section 132 and Rule 112-A. The Court dismissed all contentions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether Section 132(1) and (5) and Rule 112(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, violate Article 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution by imposing unreasonable restrictions on the freedoms of property and profession. The Assessee argued that these provisions unduly restrict fundamental rights. The Revenue contended that such restrictions are necessary to curb tax evasion, which harms the community's economic life, and that adequate safeguards exist. 2. Whether Section 132(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is confiscatory in nature. The Assessee likely argued it was confiscatory, while the Revenue would have argued it was a measure for tax recovery. 3. Whether Section 132(1) and (5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, violate Article 14 of the Constitution by prescribing different procedures for tax evaders based on whether they are believed to be in possession of undisclosed income or property. The Assessee argued this creates discriminatory treatment. The Revenue contended that the procedure is justified as search and seizure are only undertaken when there is a belief of undisclosed income, making it a rational classification. 4. Whether evidence gathered from an illegal seizure of documents is excluded at trial, and if a writ of prohibition can be issued to restrain its use. The Assessee argued for exclusion and prohibition. The Revenue argued that relevant evidence, even if obtained through an irregular search, is admissible unless expressly prohibited. 5. Whether the Director of Inspection can entertain a "reason to believe" for ordering a search and seizure under Section 132(1) when the assessment for the relevant year is already completed. The Assessee argued that a completed assessment negates the possibility of a reasonable belief. The Revenue contended that the Director, through his oversight role, can form such a belief based on information irrespective of the assessment status. 6. Whether the seizure of irrelevant documents renders the search invalid. The Assessee likely argued that seizure of irrelevant documents vitiates the entire search. The Revenue contended that some latitude must be given during a search, and the seizure of irrelevant documents is at most an irregularity, not an illegality.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 132A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

POORAN MAL ETC. ~. DIRECTOR OF INSPECTION (INVESTIGATION) OF INCOME- TAX MAYUR BHAVAN, NEW DELHI & OTHERS.

December 14, 1973 '[A. N. RAY, C.J., D. G. PALE~AR, Y. V. CHANl>R,ACHUD, A. ALAGIRI- SWAMI .AND P. N. BHAGWATI, JJ.] .

Income Tax Act (1961)--cSectlons 132, 132.A and Rules 112, 112A-Search and seizure-Whether violate Art. 19(1) (f) and (g) of the Constitution. · A B Income Tax Act 1961, Sec. 132(S)-8elzztre of money, bullion, ttc.-Whether provision confiscatory. · C income Tax Act, 1961, Sec. 132(1) and (S)-Search and seizure-Whether provisions hit by Art. 14 of the Coiistitution for following different procedure /Or the evaders of tax, who are believed to be in possession of undl.rclo1ed ,,,... come or property and evaders against whom no such belief is entertained by the lluthorities. . · Income Tax Act 1961, Sec. 132-/Vhether evidence gathered f*1m the illegal seizure of documents is excluded at the trial-Whether a writ of prohibition· to D restrain the use of such ev.idence can be granted, Income Tax Act 1961, sec. 132-"Reason to believe"-WMther Director of .

Inspection can entertain reasonable belief as not being directly connected with the ass

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →