BAL JAGANNATH MAHARAJ PANDIT AND ORS vs. ADDITIOANAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/5866/2011HC BombayHCBM01017044201122 October 2012Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE J.P. DEVADHAR,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M.S. SANKLECHA2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the petitioners had filed their application under Section 138 of the Income-tax Act as directed. The Revenue's counsel assured that this application would be considered and an appropriate order passed within three months. In light of this development, the Court found that nothing further survived in the writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. All contentions of both parties were expressly kept open.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Bal Jagannath Maharaj Pandit and others, filed a writ petition challenging a communication from the Additional Director of Income-tax. This communication declined to furnish documents seized during a search conducted on November 20, 2010. Previously, on June 19, 2012, the Bombay High Court had directed the petitioners to file an application under Section 138 of the Income-tax Act in the prescribed form to obtain these documents. The petitioners stated they filed this application on June 28, 2012, before the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central – I, Mumbai. The Revenue's counsel confirmed that this application would be considered and an appropriate order passed within three months.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to receive the documents seized during the search conducted on November 20, 2010, from the Additional Director of Income-tax? Assessee's Contention: The petitioners sought the return of documents seized during a search. They had previously been directed by the Court to apply under Section 138 of the Income-tax Act. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue stated that the application filed by the petitioners under Section 138 would be considered, and an appropriate order would be passed within three months.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 138

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

aswp5866-11 agk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5866 OF 2011 Bal Jagannath Maharaj Pandit and others ..Petitioners. Versus Additional Director of Income­tax & Others ..Respondents. Mr.Sandeep Phatak with Mr.Sugandh B Deshmukh & for the petitioners. Mr.Vimal Gupta, Senior Counsel with Ms.Padma Divakar for respondent No.1. Mr.A.F.F. Patel, AGP for respondent No.2 Mr.A.A.   Kumbhakoni   with   Mr.Girish   Kulkarni,   Mr.A.P.   Kulkarni   i/by M/s.Bharat Shah & Co. for respondent No.3. Mr.A.M. Kulkarni for respondent No.4. Mr.Vaibhav Joglekar with Mr.S.S. Kanetkar for respondent No.6. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & M.S. Sanklecha, JJ. DATE     : 22nd October 2012 P.C. : 1. The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is against the communication issued by the Additional Director of Income Tax declining to furnish the documents seized during the course of search that took place on 20th November 2010. 2. This   Court   by   an   order   dated   19th  June   2012   directed   the petitioners to make an application under Section 138 of the Income Tax Act in   the   prescribed   form   seeking   the   documents   in   question,   so   that   the Appropriate Authority considers the same and passes appropriate order in 1 of 2

aswp5866-11 accordance with law. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that on 28th June 2012 requisite application has been filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Central – I, Mumbai.  Counsel for the Revenue states that the said application of the petitioners dated 28th June 0212 would be considered and appropriate order would be passed within a period of three months from today.  In view of the above, nothing survives in the writ petition and the same is dismissed as withdrawn.  No costs. 4. All contentions of both the parties are kept open.

(M.S. Sanklecha, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.) 2 of 2

More judgments on Section 138

All 154 judgments and leading authorities on Section 138 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →