Rajendra Singh v. The Union of India, New Delhi/The Chairman, CBDT, New Delhi/ The Director General of Income-tax(Investigation), Patna/ The Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Patna
[Citation -2017-LL-1106-14]

Citation 2017-LL-1106-14
Appellant Name Rajendra Singh
Respondent Name The Union of India, New Delhi/The Chairman, CBDT, New Delhi/ The Director General of Income-tax(Investigation), Patna/ The Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Patna
Court HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 06/11/2017
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags competent authority • search and seizure • business premises
Bot Summary: Seeking release of the aforesaid seized wood and contending that a representation made by the petitioner in this regard to the competent authority of the department has not been considered and decided, this writ petition has been filed and today during the course of hearing learned counsel stated that he would be satisfied if the matter is examined by a competent authority and a decision taken on his representation. Learned counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department points out that in fact a seizure-list was prepared after the seizure indicating the quantity of wood but it is specifically averred by her that the wood was never taken away after including them in the seizure-list and there is no question of returning the wood. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that in the raid that was conducted between 08.09.2010 to 10.09.2010 certain materials were seized and a seizure-list was also prepared and in Annexure-6 dated 30 th of April, 2014 written to the petitioner by the Assistant Income Tax Commissioner, Circle-3, Patna, a copy of the seizure-list was enclosed to him. Now, if the wood was not seized, the reason for its inclusion in the seizure-list becomes doubtful and a dispute. As the grievance made by the Patna High Court CWJC No.2556 of 2016 dt.06-11-2017 3/3 petitioner is to return the wood seized, it is thought appropriate to direct Respondent No. 4 the Additional Director of Income Tax, Patna to look into the grievance of the petitioner, cause an inquiry into the matter and if it is found that the wood in question has been seized and in accordance with law petitioner is entitled to return of the same, he may pass appropriate orders returning the material in question to the petitioner and it shall be incumbent upon the respondents to record reasons for the same and pass a speaking order. Either way, the action be taken and a decision communicated to the petitioner within 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid, we dispose of the writ petition.


IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2556 of 2016 Rajendra Singh son of Late Charan Singh resident of M/s Bhargo Saw Mill, Mithapur, P.S.- Jakkanpur, District- Patna proprietor of M/s Bhargo Saw Mill, Mithapur, P.S.- Jakkanpur, District- Patna. Petitioner/s Versus 1. Union of India, through Secretary, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi- 110001. 2. Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi- 110001. 3. Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), Central Revenue Building, Virchand Patel Marg, Patna- 800001. 4. Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Central Revenue Building, Virchand Patel Marg, Patna- 800001. 5. Additional Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Central Revenue Building, Virchand Patel Marg, Patna- 800001. 6. Sri L.K. Kanak, Deputy Director of Income Tax, (Investigation Unit-II), Central Revenue Building, Virchand Patel Marg, Patna- 800001. 7. Divisional Forest Officer, Patna Forest Division, Patna, Sanyukt Van Bhawan, Nehru Nagar, Patna- 800013. ... ... Respondent/s Appearance : For Petitioner/s : Mr. Vinay Mistry, Advocate For Respondent/s : Mrs. Archana Sinha, Advocate Mr. Alok Kumar, Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate For Respondent No. 7 : Mr. H.S. Sundaram, A.C. to S.C. 8 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 06-11-2017 search and seizure was conducted in petitioner s business premises under Section 132(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 between 08.09.2010 to 10.09.2010 and it is contention of petitioner that 3080 CFT of Sagwan and Badam wood were seized and taken away by Income Tax Patna High Court CWJC No.2556 of 2016 dt.06-11-2017 2/3 officials. Seeking release of aforesaid seized wood and contending that representation made by petitioner in this regard to competent authority of department has not been considered and decided, this writ petition has been filed and today during course of hearing learned counsel stated that he would be satisfied if matter is examined by competent authority and decision taken on his representation. However, learned counsel appearing for Income Tax Department points out that in fact seizure-list was prepared after seizure indicating quantity of wood but it is specifically averred by her that wood was never taken away after including them in seizure-list and, therefore, there is no question of returning wood. After hearing learned counsel for parties, we find that in raid that was conducted between 08.09.2010 to 10.09.2010 certain materials were seized and seizure-list was also prepared and in Annexure-6 dated 30 th of April, 2014 written to petitioner by Assistant Income Tax Commissioner, Circle-3, Patna, copy of seizure-list was enclosed to him. Now, if wood was not seized, reason for its inclusion in seizure-list becomes doubtful and dispute. That being so, as grievance made by Patna High Court CWJC No.2556 of 2016 dt.06-11-2017 3/3 petitioner is to return wood seized, it is thought appropriate to direct Respondent No. 4 Additional Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Patna to look into grievance of petitioner, cause inquiry into matter and if it is found that wood in question has been seized and in accordance with law petitioner is entitled to return of same, he may pass appropriate orders returning material in question to petitioner and it shall be incumbent upon respondents to record reasons for same and pass speaking order. Either way, action be taken and decision communicated to petitioner within 60 days from date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With aforesaid, we dispose of writ petition. (Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) P.K.P. AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R. CAV DATE N.A. Uploading Date 09.11.2017 Transmission Date Rajendra Singh v. Union of India, New Delhi/The Chairman, CBDT, New Delhi/ Director General of Income-tax(Investigation), Patna/ Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Patna
Report Error