dditional Director of Income Tax (Investigation) is duly authorised to issue warrants of search in view of the retrospective amendment of s 132(1)

CIT v Prem Gandhi (Delhi HC) –  In view of the amendment to section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act which has retrospective effect from 1.6.1994, Additional Director of Income Tax (Investigation) is duly authorized to issue warrants of search. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal of the respondent herein on merits.

CIT v Prem Gandhi

High Court of Delhi

IT(SS)A. No. 267/Del/2002

Block Period: 1990-91 to 2000-01

ITA No. 90/2009 & C M No. 19981/2010

Decided on: 5 May 2011

Judgment

ITA No.90/2009 & C M No.19981/2010

The appeal filed by the assessee before the Tribunal was allowed only on the ground that the warrant for authorization of search under section 132 can be issued by the Additional Director of Income Tax (Investigation) but he had no power to issue such authorization under Section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act.

2. In view of the amendment to section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act which has retrospective effect from 1.6.1994, this ground does not survive. As per this amendment, Additional Director of Income Tax (Investigation) is duly authorized to issue warrants of search. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal of the respondent herein on merits.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent/assessee has also submitted that there is another jurisdictional plea which though not raised by the assessee but be permitted to raise the same before the Tribunal. He claims that on the ground of appeal before the Tribunal, jurisdictional plea that notice under section 143(2) was not served has not been taken by inadvertence though it was taken before the CIT(A) and the assessee should be allowed to make such a request before the ITAT and it will be for the ITAT to decide as to whether this plea is to be allowed or not.

4. In view thereof, the present appeal stands disposed of alongwith pending application.

Related posts:

1. CBI closed corruption case against former director general (investigation) of income tax
2. Income or transactions not disclosed on or before date of search – would not have been disclosed but for the search – to be treated as undisclosed income
3. Reassessment beyond four years on the basis of retrospective amendment not justified
4. Retrospective or prospective applicability of a provision cannot be decided simply on the basis of the view taken by CBDT ignoring the plain statutory language
5. If a search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is challenged on the ground that information leading to reasons to believe for authorising search was irrelevant then how should this question be resolved?