Wp/30692/2018 Of Shri.balamugugan v. Deputy Director Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 18.12.2018 Balamurugan Deputy Director of Income TaxInvestigation, Unit -3(2),New No.46, Old No.108,M.G.Road, Nungambakkam,Chennai-34. ... Respondent Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent topass orders on Petitioner's representation dated 10.10.2018. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ ofMandamus, directing the respondent to pass orders on thePetitioner's representation dated 10.10.2018. 2.Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submittedthat the petitioner is working in a Private Company and earningRs.45,000/- as a monthly income. While so, the Income TaxDepartment undertook search proceedings and visited hisresidence suddenly and took away all irrelevant materials andissued prohibitory orders on his accounts on 5.7.2018 for nofault on his part without issuing any notice. Subsequently, thepetitioner was kept in total darkness and the basis of searchwas also not informed to him. 3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner furthersubmitted that since the petitioner is a family man living withhis wife who is unemployed and daughter who is studying M.Sc. inMOP Vaishnav College at Nungambakkam and his son, who isstudying in B.Tech. in Aerospace in SRM University atKattangalathur, Chennai, he finds it difficult to run his familyin view of the said prohibitory order on his account. 4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submittedthat under Section 132(8A) of the Income Tax Act, theProhibitory Order cannot be in force beyond a period of 60 days.But in the present case, though the Prohibitory Order was dated5.7.2018, the same is not lifted even after 75 days. In thisregard, the petitioner has given a representation dated10.10.2018 to the respondent. But there is no action on thesame. Hence the present Writ Petition. 5.A Counter Affidavit has been filed by the DeputyDirector of Income Tax, Investigation, Unit-3(2), Nungambakkam,Chennai. 6.Learning Standing Counsel appearing for the respondentrelying on the stand taken by the respondent in his counteraffidavit fairly submitted that the Prohibitory Order issuedunder Section 132(3) of the Income Tax Act is valid only for aperiod of 60 days and thereafter, it automatically ceases itseffect. 7.It is useful to extract paragraph 3 of the Counteraffidavit of the respondent here under:''3. I submit that prohibitory order issuedu/s.132(3) of the Income Tax Act is valid for a periodof 60 days only and thereafter it automatically ceasesits effect. In any case, the operation of restraintu/s.132(3) has since ceased after expiry of 60 daysfrom the conclusion of the search. When theprovisions of Sec.132(3) are very clear andunambiguous about the period of restraint and in theabsence of any mandatory requirement of intimating theparties, it was not necessary to inform about the saidfact.'' 8.In the light of the stand taken by the respondent thatthe prohibitory order passed under Section 132(3) of the IncomeTax Act on 5.7.2018 has lapsed after the expiry of 60 days, theWrit Petition stands allowed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar tsi To Deputy Director of Income TaxInvestigation, Unit -3(2),New No.46, Old No.108,M.G.Road, Nungambakkam,Chennai-34. +1cc to Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Advocate, S.R.No.88320+1cc to Mr.Madhan Babu, Advocate, S.R.No.88046 W.P.No.30692 of 2018rrs 26/12/2018