Gunjan Girishbhai Mehta , Legal Heirs of Girishbahi K. Mehta v. Director of Investigation & Ors
[Citation -2017-LL-0321-16]

Citation 2017-LL-0321-16
Appellant Name Gunjan Girishbhai Mehta , Legal Heirs of Girishbahi K. Mehta
Respondent Name Director of Investigation & Ors.
Court SUPREME COURT
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 21/03/2017
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags search warrant • legal heir • dead person • validity of search warrant
Bot Summary: Notice of assessment under Section 158BC of the Act was issued and in 2 the assessment proceedings, where the income was declared to be 'nil', the present petitioner as the legal heir had participated. Thereafter, notice under Section 158BD of the Act was issued to the present petitioner on the basis of information coming to light in the course of search. Aggrieved, the petitioner moved the High Court and on dismissal of the writ petition filed, the present Special Leave Petition has been instituted. The issue of invalidity of the search warrant was not raised at any point of time prior to the notice under Section 158BD. In fact, the petitioner had participated in the proceedings of assessment initiated under Section 158BC of 3 the Act. The information discovered in the course of the search, if capable of generating the satisfaction for issuing a notice under Section 158BD, cannot altogether become irrelevant for further action under Section 158BD of the Act. In Rakesh Kumar, Mukesh Kumar the challenge was to the proceedings of assessment under Section 158 BC of the Act on the basis of a search warrant issued in the name of a dead person. The issue in A.R. Enterprises has no similarity to the issue in hand, namely, the validity of the proceedings under Section 158BD of the Act.


ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.4 SECTION IIIA SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S). 30282/2015 (ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 04/08/2014 IN SCA. NO. 9395/2004 PASSED BY HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD) GUNJAN GIRISHBHAI MEHTA LEGAL HEIRS OF GIRISHBHAI K. MEHTA PETITIONER(S) VERSUS DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATION & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) (WITH APPLN. (S) FOR C/DELAY IN FILING SLP AND INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT) Date : 21/03/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Inder Paul Bansal, Adv. Mr. Vivek Bansal, Adv. Ms. Saroj Raichura, Adv. Mr. Kalp Raichura, Adv. Mr. Haresh Raichura, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv. Mr. D.L. Chidanand, Adv. Ms. Sadhna Sandhu, Adv. Mr. Amol Chitale, Adv. Mr. Debashish Bharukha, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. UPON hearing counsel Court made following ORDER Special Leave Petition is dismissed in terms of signed order. [VINOD LAKHINA] [ASHA SONI] Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by COURT MASTER COURT MASTER VINOD LAKHINA Date: 2017.03.27 17:19:43 IST [SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON FILE] Reason: 1 IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.30282/2015 GUNJAN GIRISHBHAI MEHTA LEGAL HEIRS OF GIRISHBHAI K. MEHTA ...PETITIONER VERSUS DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATION & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS ORDER 1. Heard learned counsels for parties and perused relevant material. 2. Delay condoned. 3. Notice under Section 132 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short Act ) was issued in name of dead person. said notice was duly received by present petitioner as legal heir of dead person. Notice of assessment under Section 158BC of Act was issued and in 2 assessment proceedings, where income was declared to be 'nil', present petitioner as legal heir had participated. Thereafter, notice under Section 158BD of Act was issued to present petitioner on basis of information coming to light in course of search. Aggrieved, petitioner moved High Court and on dismissal of writ petition filed, present Special Leave Petition has been instituted. 4. point urged before us, shortly put, is that if original search warrant is invalid consequential action under Section 158BD would also be invalid. We do not agree. issue of invalidity of search warrant was not raised at any point of time prior to notice under Section 158BD. In fact, petitioner had participated in proceedings of assessment initiated under Section 158BC of 3 Act. information discovered in course of search, if capable of generating satisfaction for issuing notice under Section 158BD, cannot altogether become irrelevant for further action under Section 158BD of Act. 5. reliance placed on decision of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Commissioner of Income -tax, Karnal vs. Rakesh Kumar, Mukesh Kumar [(2009) 178 Taxman 224 (Punjab & Haryana) = 313 ITR 305 (Punjab & Haryana)] against which Special Leave Petition [SLP(C) NO...CC 3623/2009] has been dismissed by this Court and decision of this Court in Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai vs. A.R. Enterprises [(2013) 29 Taxmann.com 50 (SC) = 350 ITR 489 (SC) are on entirely different facts. 4 6. In Rakesh Kumar, Mukesh Kumar (supra) challenge was to proceedings of assessment under Section 158 BC of Act on basis of search warrant issued in name of dead person. issue in A.R. Enterprises (supra) has no similarity to issue in hand, namely, validity of proceedings under Section 158BD of Act. 7. For aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in this Special Leave Petition. same is accordingly dismissed. .....,J. (RANJAN GOGOI) ........,J. (NAVIN SINHA) NEW DELHI MARCH 21, 2017 Gunjan Girishbhai Mehta , Legal Heirs of Girishbahi K. Mehta v. Director of Investigation & Or
Report Error