Ayushmati Education & Social Society vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

1 W.P. No.16008/2011 23/6/2014. Shri Mukesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the respondent. Grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is with regard to the action of the respondent department in not supplying to the petitioners certified copies or attested true copies of certain documents said to have been seized by the respondents in a proceeding held against the petitioners establishment under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Facts in nut shell goes to show that in a search and seizure operation conducted in the petitioners' establishment, certain original books of accounts, FDRs, registered deeds and certain loose papers were seized and thereafter proceedings are being held in accordance to the provisions of law. In the meanwhile, petitioners wanted copies of certain documents which were seized in the proceedings held and therefore, filed certain application. They were considered and it seems that the department supplied to the 2 W.P. No.16008/2011 petitioners photocopies of the documents as requested for by them. Annexure P/5 dated 29.7.2011 filed by the petitioners itself goes to show that photocopies of the documents with reference to various letters of the petitioner as indicated in Annexure P/5 were supplied to them. However, the petitioners was not satisfied with mere supply of photocopies but wanted attested copy of documents or certified copies of the same by a competent officer. According to the respondents as this was not permissible, they cannot supply the documents. Shri Sanjay Lal referred to the provisions of law and argued that once photocopies of the documents as is evident from petitioners own showing in Annexure P/ 5 is supplied in the absence of any statutory requirement under the Income Tax Act warranting supply of certified copies, no interference into the matter is called for. Even though Shri Mukesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners tried to emphasize that the documents until and unless they are not attested cannot be said to be authentic and petitioner would suffer adversely if authentic certified copy or 3 W.P. No.16008/2011 attested copy are not supplied. But the fact remains that under the Income Tax Act, 1961, the only provision contemplated for supply of documents is Section 132(9) and the provisions of Section 132(9) reads as under :- "Section 132(9) : The person from whose custody any books of account or other documents are seized under sub section (1) [or sub section (1A)] may make copies thereof, or take extracts therefrom, in the presence of the authorized officer or any other person empowered by him in this behalf, at such place and time as the authorized officer may appoint in this behalf.]" Apart from the aforesaid no other provision is brought to our notice which mandate the respondents to issue certified or attested copies of the documents. In the absence of statutory requirement being imposed upon the respondents to supply attested or certified copies of the documents, we are afraid that no mandamus can be issued in this regard exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. If the petitioners have any right to receive the 4 W.P. No.16008/2011 certified copy of documents as required by the petitioners, either under the Right to Information Act or under any statutory provision, petitioners may have liberty to seek the documents with reference to the same. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as no further indulgence is called for, we disposed of the petition with the aforesaid liberty to the petitioners. (Rajendra Menon) (Sushil Kumar Gupta) Judge Judge

mrs.mishra