11.07.2015 Views

Download eBook on Survey, Search & Seizure under ... - TaxGuru

Download eBook on Survey, Search & Seizure under ... - TaxGuru

Download eBook on Survey, Search & Seizure under ... - TaxGuru

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

| 42 | Voice of CAExplanati<strong>on</strong> to this clause also further clears that serving of restraint orderas aforesaid <strong>under</strong> this subsecti<strong>on</strong> shall not be deemed to be seizure <strong>under</strong>clause 132 (1)(iii).Limitati<strong>on</strong> of secti<strong>on</strong> 132(3): An order u/s 132(3) shall be valid upto sixtydays from the date of the order. (secti<strong>on</strong> 132(8A)Pers<strong>on</strong> defaulting in sec<strong>on</strong>d proviso to clause (3) of secti<strong>on</strong> 132 shall bepunishable with rigorous impris<strong>on</strong>ment which may extend to 2 years andshall be liable to fine also. (Secti<strong>on</strong> 275A)Gems of Judiciary1. MAA VAISHNAVI SPONGE LTD. V. DGIT (INVESTIGATION)[2011] 339 ITR 0413 (ORI). - The issuance of prohibitory orders u/s132(3) in respect of current bank accounts, savings bank accounts, cashcredit accounts, loan accounts, overdraft accounts, recurring depositaccounts, pers<strong>on</strong>al accounts or any other accounts duly passed throughregular books of account are not valid.2. M/s VISA COMTRADE LIMITED Vs UNION OF INDIA ANDOTHERS, 2011-TIOL-546-HC-ORISSA-IT - Prohibitory order issued<strong>under</strong> subsecti<strong>on</strong> (3) of Secti<strong>on</strong> 132 of the Act in respect of CurrentAccount in questi<strong>on</strong> without forming any belief and/or without anymaterial to c<strong>on</strong>clude that the amount deposited in the said CurrentAccount is either wholly or partly undisclosed income of the petiti<strong>on</strong>eris unsustainable in law.3. Rakesh Sarin V. DCIT [2011] 333 ITR 0451 [Mad] see also CIT v. White& White Mineral P. Ltd. SLP dismissed filed by the department[2010] 322 ITR (St) 4. - Lifting prohibitory order after 60 days doesnot amount to c<strong>on</strong>tinuati<strong>on</strong> of search and therefore date of such ordershould not be taken in to accounts for ascertaining date of executi<strong>on</strong> oflast warrant of authorizati<strong>on</strong>.H. Examinati<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> Oath, Secti<strong>on</strong> 132 (4)The Authorised Officer may, during the course of the search or seizure,examine <strong>on</strong> oath any pers<strong>on</strong> who is found to be in possessi<strong>on</strong> or c<strong>on</strong>trolof any books of account, documents, m<strong>on</strong>ey, bulli<strong>on</strong>, jewellery or othervaluable article or thing and any statement made by such pers<strong>on</strong> duringsuch examinati<strong>on</strong> may thereafter be used in evidence in any proceeding<strong>under</strong> the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or <strong>under</strong> this Act.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!