COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. JAWAHAR LAL RASTOGI

CIVIL APPEAL No. 16/1970Supreme Court[1971] 1 S.C.R. 58107 May 1970Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: J.C. SHAH, K.S. HEGDE, A.N. GROVER D F G H COMMISSIONER OF INCOME5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that while the High Court's reliance on its earlier decision in Seth Brothers v. C.I.T. was superseded by the Supreme Court's later ruling in I.T.O. v. Seth Bros., the judgment under appeal could be sustained on other grounds. Specifically, the Court found that the seized documents were retained for 19 months, far exceeding the 180-day limit stipulated in Section 132(8) of the Act. Crucially, there was no record of reasons for this extended retention by the Income-tax Officer, nor was there any approval from the Commissioner for such retention. The Court noted that although this specific point regarding the 180-day limit was not explicitly argued before the High Court, the department had an opportunity to present evidence of recorded reasons or approval if such existed. Since this evidence was not produced, the retention of documents was deemed contrary to the law. Therefore, the order of the High Court was sustained on the ground that the documents were retained without legal authority beyond the statutory period. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

On September 14, 1964, the Income-tax Officer (ITO) requested the assessee to provide statements for four assessment years ending March 31, 1960. The assessee failed to comply by September 19, 1964. On the ITO's report, the Commissioner authorised a search of the assessee's premises. The search occurred on September 21-22, 1964, resulting in the seizure of numerous documents. These documents were retained until May 1966, a period of approximately 19 months. The assessee filed a writ petition in the High Court, challenging the search and seizure. The High Court, relying on its prior decision in Seth Brothers v. C.I.T., held the search to be indiscriminate and beyond the scope of Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the search conducted by the Income-tax Officer was indiscriminate and beyond the scope of Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as amended by the Finance Act, 1965. Assessee's arguments: The assessee contended that the search was illegal and exceeded the powers conferred by Section 132. The High Court noted several points supporting this: the ITO's interest in pre-1953 transactions while the notice was for years ending March 31, 1960; the authorisation for search covering nine assessment years; the raid being ordered before the notice period expired; the seizure of over 300 books and thousands of promissory notes, some appearing irrelevant or public documents; the seizure of almost all documents found; the lack of identification marks on documents; and the retention of documents for 19 months. Revenue's arguments: The Commissioner of Income-tax argued that the High Court's reliance on its decision in Seth Brothers v. C.I.T. was erroneous, as that decision had been overruled by the Supreme Court in I.T.O. v. Seth Bros. The revenue also contended that the failure to record reasons for retaining documents beyond 180 days and the lack of Commissioner's approval were not specifically urged before the High Court as grounds for release. 2. Whether the retention of seized documents beyond 180 days was contrary to Section 132(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as amended.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 132(8)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

c D F G H COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. JAWAHAR LAL RASTOGI May 7, 1970 [J.C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.J 5 81 Income t<1x Act, 1961, as amend.ed by Finance Act 1965, s. 13:!(5)- St'izure of doc:tonent.\' and retention heyond 180 clay.s-J\/o recor,f of reasons by l.T.O. or appro~·at Df Conunissiuner of such r'1tention--Lega- lity of rt•tt•111ion, On September 14, 1964 the Income tax Officer called upon the as;essee to furnish within I 0 days statements relatin~ to four assessment years ending on March 3 I. 1960. The asse<see did not furnish the infcrmation by the 19th and on that date on the report of the Income-tax Officer. the Commissioner authorised the Income tax Officer to ••arch the premises of the assessee.

On September 21st and 22nd the premises were searched and a large number of documents- were scizc<l and retained till May 1966, that is, for a period of 19 months.

Jn a writ petition ficl<l by the asscsscc, the High Court, follo\\·ing its own decision in Serh B.ro<. v. CJ.T., 62 J.T.R. 44 held that the searcJo was indiscriminate and beyond the· scope of s. 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 In appeal to this Court. HELD: (i) The dec

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 →