Skip to content


Shri Jamuna Prasad Jaiswal, Sole Proprietor, M/S. Jamuna Prasad Munni Lal, Station Road, Deoria Vs. Shri K. K. Roy and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Misc. Writ No. 16-Tax of 1976
Reported in(1976)5CTR(All)189
AppellantShri Jamuna Prasad Jaiswal, Sole Proprietor, M/S. Jamuna Prasad Munni Lal, Station Road, Deoria
RespondentShri K. K. Roy and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....accounts were seized. subsequently, an order under section 132(5) of the act was passed by the income-tax officer treating the property as belonging to the firm messrs. jamuna prasad munni lal. objection were filed by a number of person claiming some of the properties seized to be theirs. these objections were not taken note of by the income-tax officer and the order in question was passed without any notice to the objectors. in civil misc. writ 781 of 1975, 1976 ctr (all.) 188 filed by the objectors, we have quashed the order. inasmuch as the order in question has been passed on the assumption that the property in question belongs to the petitioner, without taking note of the objections filed by third parties, the present order cannot stand as respects the petitioner as any decision.....
Judgment:

K. B. Asthana, C.J. - In the present case a raid was conducted at the house of the petitioner under section 132 of the Income-tax, 1961. A large number of valuable, fixed deposit receipts and bank accounts were seized. Subsequently, an order under section 132(5) of the Act was passed by the Income-tax Officer treating the property as belonging to the firm Messrs. Jamuna Prasad Munni Lal. Objection were filed by a number of person claiming some of the properties seized to be theirs. These objections were not taken note of by the Income-tax Officer and the order in question was passed without any notice to the objectors. In Civil Misc. writ 781 of 1975, 1976 CTR (All.) 188 filed by the objectors, we have quashed the order. Inasmuch as the order in question has been passed on the assumption that the property in question belongs to the petitioner, without taking note of the objections filed by third parties, the present order cannot stand as respects the petitioner as any decision on the objection will have a repercussion on the impugned order. The order as such as respects this petitioner cannot also be upheld.

2. We accordingly set aside the impugned order of the Income-tax Officer, and direct that the matter should be decided afresh after giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate his objection. We further direct the Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow to have the matter tried and decided by another Income-tax Officer at Deoria other than the who passed the impugned order, and those who have sworn the counter-affidavit in the case. In case no such officer is available at Deoria, he should assign an Income-tax Officer from outside to hear the case at Deoria. The petitioner is entitled to his costs. The Income-tax Officer concerned should decide the case within a period of three months from the date of the communication of this order to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow.

3. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Commissioner of Income-tax Lucknow.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //