1 Court No. - 9 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1181 of 2012 Petitioner :- Late Smt. Rewati Singh Respondent :- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal,Suyash Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shubham Agarwal Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Vinod Kumar Misra,J. 1. Heard Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Shubham Agarwal, learned counsel for respondents. 2. parties have exchanged pleadings and same have also been perused by us along with us original record which was directed to be produced by respondents. 3. On night of 31.7.2010, Smt. Rewati Singh was murdered in her house in respect whereof, First Information Report was lodged on very next day. On lodging of said FIR, further information was submitted to police that from house in which she was found murdered, amount of Rs.68 lacs is missing. Subsequently, police recovered sum of Rs.52 lacs 80 thousand from one of accused and same became case property with Court. 4. husband of late Smt. Rewati Singh, as her heir and legal representative, has preferred this writ petition for quashing of order dated 25.7.2012(copy of which is annexed as Annexure-13 to writ petition) passed by Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Muzaffar Nagar and also six notices issued under Section-153A read with Section-153C of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred in short 'the Act') of date 10.5.2012 in respect of Assessment Year 2005-06 to 2010-11. 5. basic ground for challenging above order and notices is that no proceedings under Section-153A and 153C of Act can be initiated without there being valid requisition under Section-132-A of Act. 2 Section-132-A of Act is quoted hereunder:- "(1) Where Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Director or Director or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, in consequence of information in his possession, has reason to believe that- (a) any person to whom summons under sub- section (1) of section 37 of Indian Income- tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922 ) or under subsection (1) of section 131 of this Act, or notice under sub- section (4) of section 22 of Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or under sub- section (1) of section 142 of this Act was issued to produce, or cause to be produced, any books of account or other documents has omitted or failed to produce, or cause to be produced, such books of account or other documents as required by such summons or notice and said books of account or other documents have been taken into custody by any officer or authority under any other law for time being in force, or. (b) any books of account or other documents will be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under this Act and any person to whom summons or notice as aforesaid has been or might be issued will not, or would not, produce or cause to be produced, such books of account or other documents on return of such books of account or other documents by any officer or authority by whom or which such books of account or other documents have been taken into custody under any other law for time being in force, or (c) any assets represent either wholly or partly income or property which has not been, or would not have been, disclosed for purposes of Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or this Act by any person from whose possession or control such assets have been taken into custody by any officer or authority under any other law for time being in force, then, Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Director or Director or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may authorise any Additional Director, Additional Commissioner, Joint Director, Joint Commissioner, Assistant Director or Deputy Director, Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Income- tax Officer (hereinafter in this section and in sub-section (2) of section 278D referred to as requisitioning officer) to require officer or authority referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c), as case may be, to deliver such books of account, other documents or assets to 3 requisitioning officer. (2) On requisition being made under sub-section (1), officer or authority referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c), as case may be, of that sub-section shall deliver books of account, other documents or assets to requisitioning officer either forthwith or when such officer or authority is of opinion that it is no longer necessary to retain same in his or its custody. (3) Where any books of account, other documents or assets have been delivered to requisitioning officer, provisions of sub-sections (4A) to (14) (both inclusive) of section 132 and section 132B shall, so far as may be, apply as if such books of account, other documents or assets had been seized under sub-section (1) of section 132 by requisitioning officer from custody of person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c), as case may be, of sub-section (1) of this section and as if for words authorised officer occuring in any of aforesaid sub- sections (4A) to (14), words requisitioning officer were substituted. 6. In short, if anyone of condition mentioned in clause (a), (b) or (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 132-A is fulfilled competent authority may direct authority referred to in aforesaid clauses to deliver such books of account, other documents or assets to requisitioning authority. 7. aforesaid books of accounts, other documents or assets could be directed to be requisitioned only if officer or authority concerned has reason to believe on basis of information in his possession that such books of accounts, other documents or assets have been taken into custody under any other law by any officer or authority. Therefore, possession of certain information and formation of opinion having reason to believe that such books of accounts, other documents or assets have been taken into custody by some officer or authority in accordance with law is essential for valid requisition. 8. Rule 122(d) of Income Tax Rules provides that authorization under section 132 (1) shall be in writing under signature of officer issuing authorization bearing his seal and shall be in Form- 45C. It further provides that copy of requisition alongwith copy of authorisation in Form-45C shall be forwarded to person referred to 4 under clause (a), (b) and (c) of Act, as case may be, calling upon officer or authority to deliver books of accounts, other documents or assets specified in requisition. Form 45-C prescribes contents of form and said contents discloses that it is mandatory upon authority concerned to mention information in his possession on basis of which he has reason to believe that officer or authority concerned has taken possession of books of accounts, documents or assets. 9. In present case , it is being contended that there was no valid requisition inasmuch as requisition which has been issued by concerned authority do not refers to any information or material on basis of which it may have formed opinion so as to apply Section 132-A of Act. It does not even record satisfaction with regard to reason to believe for requisition and further that it does not even specify books of accounts or documents which are sought be requisitioned. 10. In response to above contention Sri Shubham Agarwal learned counsel on basis of original record relating to above requisition submits that notice was issued on 13.8.2010 and that it was shown on 14.8.2010 to officer concerned i.e. S.S.P. Muzaffar Nagar. officer has read over authorization and acknowledged requisition by letter of same date. However, in respect of assets i.e. cash it was informed by him that since amount is under judicial custody as case property it is not liable to be produced by him. In support of aforesaid requisition letter he has also placed reliance upon order sheet contained in original file and order dated 13.8.2010 therein which states that seizure of aforesaid amount in cash is strong reason to believe that Hukum Singh is having income which is not being disclosed to department and therefore it is necessary to send summons for his personal attendance. 11. bare perusal of requisition dated 13.8.2010 reveals that though it is in Form No. 45C but all contents of form has been scored out and it only states as under: 5 "the assets taken into custody by Sri Praveen Kumar, S.S.P., Muzaffar Nagar represent either wholly or partly income or property which has not been or would not have been disclosed for purposes of Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, or Income Tax Act, 1961 by Sri Hukum Singh, House No.7, Gandhi Colony (in front of Barat Ghar) Muzaffar Nagar from whose possession or control such assets have been taken into custody by Officer/Authority aforesaid. This is to authorize Umesh Takyar/Yashvendra Singh to require said officer or authority to deliver to you books of account, other documents or assets as aforesaid. (SEAL) sd/- Director General or Director/ Chief Commissioner or Commissioner of Income-tax" 12. aforesaid contents of requisition notice no where contains any averment that there was any material or information in possession of authority issuing aforesaid requisition on basis of which any reason to believe as required under Section-132A(1) of Act could have been recorded. It does not even records any satisfaction for issuing such requisition. In addition to it, requisition notice does not even contain or specifies any books of accounts or documents which are sought to be requisitioned by officer authorized from S.S.P. Muzaffar Nagar except assets alleged to be taken into custody by SSP without even specifying cash amount. Thus, said requisition notice cannot be said to be in accordance with format of Form No.45C and does not fulfil requirement of provisions of Section 132-A(1) of Act and even Rule- 112 d(2) which contemplates for mentioning specified books of accounts, documents and assets which are sought to be requisitioned. 13. submission that there was sufficient information and material for forming opinion in sending requisition under Section-132A(1) as is reflected from ordersheet is of no substance inasmuch as information and reason to believe has to be contained in letter of requisition itself. Even otherwise, order-sheet only contains that local 6 Hindi Newspaper contains news item that Smt. Rewati Singh was murdered and looted and looted amount of about Rs.51 lacs was seized by Muzaffar Nagar Police from accused persons. further order dated 13.8.2010 states that seizure of aforesaid amount is strong reason to believe that Hukum Singh is having income which is not being disclosed. Therefore, newspaper information is sought to be made basis for issuing above requisition letter but availability of such information by itself without there being any other material or information which would justify that person in possession was having income over and above that disclosed and that he had concealed real income is not sufficient to order requisition of seized cash. 14. Apart from this validity of letter of requisition has to be adjudicated on basis of its contents and its contents cannot be supplemented by any material which may be part of record but not disclosed or referred to in requisition letter itself. Moreover, cash recovered by police or SSP had became case property which cannot be produced before income tax authorities without leave of court concerned. 15. In case of Vindhya Metal Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [(1985) 156 ITR 233 Allahabad] Division Bench of this Court was seized with similar matter pertaining to requisition under Section 132A of Act and question before it was whether information available with authority concerned in issuing requisition constitute valid information or not. Court held that mere unexplained possession of amount without anything more could hardly be said to constitute information which could be treated as sufficient by reasonable person leading to inference that it was income which was not disclosed by person in possession of it for purpose of Act. After all, belief for purpose of Section 132A is to be belief entertainable by reasonable man and is not belief arbitrarily entertained on material or grounds which will not lead reasonable man to that belief. In other words, possession of some amount by person was not held to be sufficient for purpose of issuing requisition under Section-132A of Act. 7 16. In another case of Manju Tandon Vs. T.N. Kapoor, Deputy Superintendent of Police reported in [(1978) 115 ITR 473 (Allahabad)] another Division Bench of this Court while considering provisions of Section 132A(1) of Act held that it is only material available with authority concerned at time of issuing authorization under Section 132A of Act that is relevant for forming opinion for requisition under Section 132A(1) of Act. In said case certain ornaments were ceased by Central Bureau Of Investigation and was in its custody. Court held that there was absolutely no material before authority concerned to show that said ornaments had been obtained with aid of any concealed income. 17. In line with above decisions there is another judgment of this Court in case of Sri Janki Solvent Extraction Limited Vs. D.D.I.C. reported in [(1996)221 ITR 30 (Allahabad)]. In said case, it was held that requisitioning of books of accounts and their documents under section 132A(1) (b) without recording satisfaction or reason for believe is not sustainable in law and is therefore liable to be quashed. 18. It may not be out of context to mention here that income tax authorities have no jurisdiction to issue any requisition under Section 132A of Act to any Court for either summoning books of accounts or assets which may include cash as per case of CIT Vs. Balbir Singh report in [(1993) 203 ITR 650(P & H). 19. In view of above decisions no requisition could have been made under Section 132A(1) of Act to S.S.P. Muzaffar Nagar for producing cash which was recovered from one of accused. 20. documents or books of accounts in respect whereof requisition is said to have been issued have not been disclosed either in requisition or in any other supportive material which means that requisitioning authority had no intimation whatsoever as to documents or books of accounts which he proposes to be requisitioned. In such situation, only inference which can be drawn is that no satisfaction or 8 any reason to believe was validly recorded by requisitioning authority for issuing requisition. 21. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, conclusion drawn by Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vide impugned order dated 25.7.2012 for requisition under Section 132A(1) of Act is not legally tenable in law and cannot be sustained. 22. Accordingly order dated 25.7.2012 is hereby quashed and all consequential notices issued under Section 157A read with Section 153C of Act dated 10.5.2012 are rendered meaningless. 23. It goes without saying that this order would not effect regular assessment proceedings, if any, regarding assessment of income of Sri Hukum Singh, husband of late Smt. Rewati Singh for any year which may be pending before authorities concerned. 24. writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 19.4.2017 Deepika Rewati Singh v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and Other