Commissioner Of Income Tax Jaipur v. Mrs Urmila Loomba

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 24 / 2001 Commissioner Of Income Tax Jaipur ----Appellant Versus Mrs Urmila Loomba ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order 07/02/2017 1.By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged thejudgment and order of the Tribunal whereby Tribunal has allowedthe appeal of the assessee. 2.The original search warrant was produced vide order dt. 4.3.2005 which reads as under:- “The original search warrant of authorisation hasbeen shown by learned counsel for the appellanttoday in Court. He prays that he will be allowed totake back that original copy and be allowed to filethe certified copy of the search warrant ofauthorisation.” 3.Counsel for the appellant has taken us to the finding of the tribunal which reads as under:- “The assessing officer issued notices for filing ofreturn for the block period as also issuance of noticeunder sec.142(1) and completion of assessment onthe premises that a search has been carried on9,11,95. This is found to be factually incorrect. All thePanchnamas placed before us have carefully beenperused and we find that there was no search on 9.11.95 on any of the appellants before us. This iswhy the revenue appears to be shy of producing theauthorisation/search warrants in these cases. It hasbeen stated by the id. Departmental representativethat there is no question of producing the searchwarrant before the Tribunal. The revenue authoritieshave declined to follow the directions given to them.Necessarily an adverse view has to be taken. Theprinciple of Rule of Law is a fundamental feature ofcommon Law Jurisprudence. Indian Constitution isfounded on Rule of Law. The revenue authoritiesappear to be acting under the influence of arbitrarypower. The Rule of Law conveys that no man is abovethe law. The utter disregard and disobedience beingshown by the revenue is a classic exercise ofarbitrariness and an effort to breach the rule of alwand to dilute the same. This cannot be permitted soas to safeguard the supremacy of Law. Keeping inview the entire conspectus of the case, our findingsand observations, we hold that assessment socompleted under sec. 158BC of the IT Act on the basisof search on 9.11.95 in the cases of all the appellantsbefore us is a nullity.” 4.In that view of the matter, the tribunal has committed anerror in presuming non production of the original document butsince original documents are produced before this courttherefore it is required to be factually verified by the tribunal. 5.In that view of the matter, the order of the tribunal isquashed. 6.The matter is remitted back to the tribunal forreconsideration. 7.Parties will appear before the tribunal on 7.3.2017. The appeal stands allowed. (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)J. (K.S. JHAVERI)J. Brijesh 4.