MEGACITY (BANGALORE) DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS V. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/14561/2020

AI Insights

The case involves Megacity (Bangalore) Developers and Builders, the petitioner, who sought the return of documents, books of accounts, and various other documents seized during a search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act on 21.07.2009. The petitioner argued that these documents are essential for business operations and that despite repeated requests, the documents have not been returned, and the retention period has been extended repeatedly by the respondents. The respondents, including the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, contended that the seized materials are necessary for ongoing proceedings. The court's decision aimed to balance the petitioner's need for the documents with the respondents' need to retain them for legal proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 695524 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Constitution of India, Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K V ARAVIND
• Assessee Lawyers: K MALHAR RAO; JINITHA CHATTERJEE
• Keywords: Income Tax; Search proceedings; Seized documents; Writ of Certiorari; Writ of Mandamus; Writ of prohibition
• Section: 132; 226; 227

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.14561 OF 2020 (T - IT) BETWEEN: MEGACITY (BANGALORE) DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS; NO.01 CHANDRALOKA, 5TH CROSS GANDHINAGAR BANGALORE-560009. (PAN NO.AANPY7636H) REPRESENTED BY: C. P. YOGESHWAR ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.K MALHAR RAO & SMT.JINITHA CHATTERJEE, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C.R. BUILDINGS QUEEN'S ROAD BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(1)(2) BMTC COMPLEX KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560095. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTION TO THE R-2 AUTHORITY TO RELEASE THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS, BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND VARIOUS OTHER DOCUMENTS 2 WHICH WAS SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ON 21.07.2009 OF THE PETITIONER AND THEREWITH CONSIDER THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING : ORDER In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: (i) Issue Writ of Mandamus or writ of direction to the 2nd respondent authority to release the seized documents, books of accounts and various other documents which was seized during the search proceedings under section 132 of the Income Tax Act on 21.07.2009 of the petitioner and therewith consider the submission of the petitioner; and (ii) Issue writ of certiorari or writ quashing the Memorandum, dated 26.08.2020, issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, vide Annexure-H. (iii) Issue writ of prohibition restraining the respondent authorities, not to initiate any further action, till the disposal of the above writ petition, (iv) Pass such other or further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and 3 circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the documents produced by the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the search having taken place as long back as on 21.07.2009, wherein documents, books of accounts, etc., were seized from the petitioner pursuant to which the petitioner has submitted repeated representations seeking return and release of the said documents, instead of doing so, the respondents are repeatedly extending the time for retention of the books of accounts, documents, etc., which have not been returned back or released in favour of the petitioner even as on today and since the said documents are extremely necessary and essential for the petitioner for the purpose of his business, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the document, books of accounts, etc., seized during 4 search are necessary for the purpose of the proceedings and consequently, the question of returning the same to the petitioner at this stage does not arise. 5. In my considered opinion, the grievance of the petitioner with regard to non-return of the books of accounts, documents, etc., seized during search can be addressed by disposing of this petition by directing the petitioner to submit a representation in this regard to the respondents seeking return of the said documents and by directing the respondents to take necessary steps to return back the documents as requested by the petitioner by retaining true photostat copies of the same with the respondents for the purpose of the proceedings and also by directing the petitioner to file an affidavit of undertaking that he shall not take, change, alter or modify the documents so returned to him in any manner whatsoever and that he shall produce the same to the respondents as and when required by them. 6. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is hereby disposed of. 5 ii) Petitioner is reserved liberty to submit a representation to the respondents seeking return of all the documents seized from the petitioner during the subject search proceedings conducted on 21.07.2009. iii) Upon the petitioner submitting such a representation, the respondents shall take necessary steps to address the grievances of the petitioner and to return back all the documents seized from the petitioner during the subject search proceedings conducted on 21.07.2009 after retaining true photostat copies of the same in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date of submission of the representation by the petitioner. iv) For the purpose of enabling the respondents to return the said documents back to the petitioner, the petitioner shall file an affidavit of undertaking to the effect that he shall not change, alter or modify the documents so 6 returned to him in any manner whatsoever and that he shall produce the said documents as and when notified by the respondents. Subject to the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of. SD/- JUDGE nms/SV "