April 2010
Search and seizure — Whether the High Court was justified in holding that the Additional Director (Investigation) do not have jurisdiction to authorise Joint Director to effect search ? — Matter left open since it had become academic.
By Kishor Karia | Chartered Accountant
Atul Jasani | Advocate
Reading Time 2 mins
New Page 1
3 Search and
seizure — Whether the High Court was justified in holding that the Additional
Director (Investigation) do not have jurisdiction to authorise Joint Director to
effect search ? — Matter left open since it had become academic.
[DCIT v. Dr. Nalin Mahajan,
(2009) 314 ITR 340 (SC)]
The Delhi High Court (257 ITR
123) had inter alia held that the Additional Director (Investigation) did not
have the power to issue any authorisation or warrant to the Joint Director as he did not have any statutory authority to
issue such authorisation or warrant. Consequently, the High Court declared the
Notification dated 6th September, 1989 as not valid to that extent.
The aforesaid decision of the
High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court found that the
above question had become academic because after the impugned judgment, the
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi, had issued order u/s.132B of the Act for
release of cash, for release of jewellery and for release of the books of
account that were seized during the search and seizure operations conducted
u/s.132(1), which indicated that the matter had become final so far as the
assessment and recovery of tax was concerned. The Supreme Court therefore did
not examine the issues raised in the civil appeal and dismissed the civil appeal
keeping the questions of law raised therein expressly open.
