| Case ID |
1fe9fb8c-70cf-473b-8696-63a02d73d3a8 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
SPECIAL APPEAL No. 89 OF 1967 |
| Decision Date |
Jan 10, 1968 |
| Hearing Date |
Jan 10, 1968 |
| Decision |
The Allahabad High Court upheld the search warrants issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax, affirming that the search was conducted lawfully under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court ruled that the Commissioner had sufficient information to justify the issuance of the search warrant and that the documents seized during the search could be utilized for assessment purposes. Additionally, the Court clarified that objections regarding jurisdiction could only be raised in cases that were yet to be initiated before a particular Income Tax Officer (ITO) and not in relation to cases that were already pending. Furthermore, the imposition of penalties under the new Act for assessments completed after the new Act came into force was deemed valid and reasonable. The appeals by the department were allowed, while the appeals filed by the assessees were dismissed, leading to a reaffirmation of the powers of the Income Tax authorities in conducting assessments and imposing penalties. |
| Summary |
In the case involving the Firm Madan Mohan Damma Mal, the Allahabad High Court addressed critical issues regarding the legality of search and seizure operations conducted by the Income Tax authorities under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court examined whether the Commissioner had sufficient grounds to issue search warrants and concluded that the extensive business activities of the firm, including the unaccounted manufacture and sale of liquid gold, justified the search. Furthermore, the decision emphasized that the jurisdictional objections raised by the assessees could not be entertained as the cases had already been pending for years. The ruling also clarified the applicability of penalties under the new Act, reinforcing the authority of tax officials to enforce compliance and impose penalties in cases of concealed income. This case is significant in understanding the balance between tax authority powers and taxpayer rights, particularly concerning the assessment of concealed income and the legality of search operations. The judgment provides clarity on the procedural aspects of tax assessments and reinforces the need for taxpayers to maintain accurate records. |
| Court |
Allahabad High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Income Tax Department,
Firm Madan Mohan Damma Mal
|
| Judges |
V.G. OAK, C.J.,
BISHAMBHAR DAYAL, J.
|
| Lawyers |
K.L. Misra,
R.L. Gulati,
Deoki Nandan,
J. Swarup,
Gopal Behari
|
| Petitioners |
Firm Madan Mohan Damma Mal
|
| Respondents |
Income Tax Officer
|
| Citations |
1968 SLD 160 = (1968) 70 ITR 293
|
| Other Citations |
Kunuma son of Kaniu v. Regina [1965] 1 All ER 236 (PC),
Nakkuda Ali v. Jayaratne [1951] AC 66,
Seth Brothers v. CIT [1966] 62 ITR 44 (All.),
Shakti Offset Works v. IACIT [1967] 64 ITR 637 (Bom.)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
132,
124,
271,
297
|