No provision allows AO to retain documents of title as security for any tax liability that may arise in future: HC
- Blog|Income Tax|News|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- Last Updated on 29 September, 2022
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.
- P.B. Krishnan, P.B. Subramanyan, Sabu George, Manu Vyasan Peter & M.K. Sreegesh, Advs. for the Petitioner.
- Christopher Abraham, SC for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee was an individual and partner in a partnership firm. A survey was conducted on the premise of the assessee. As a part of operations, the Assessing Officer (AO) impounded books of accounts and other original documents produced by the assessee. The assessee filed his returns and paid all the outstanding taxes but the original documents were not released by AO.
AO contended that the firm in which the assessee was a partner had substantial tax arrears. Thus, the document of title shall be released if the assessee clears the arrears or provides a sufficient bank guarantee for the tax amount.
The assessee filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court stated there is no provision under the Income-tax Act to retain the documents of title as security for any tax liability that may arise in the future. Thus, AO cannot retain documents of title impounded/seized in absence of any such statutory provision.
Further, as per the provisions of section 131(3), the documents can be impounded only for a period of 15 days. Any further retention, after such 15 days, is to be allowed only after taking the prior approval officer mentioned under section 131(3). In the instant case, AO hadn’t taken any such approval from any officers and thus, he can’t retain the documents of title under any circumstances.
Accordingly, AO had kept the original documents of title illegally and material irregularity exists in his procedure of retention such documents. Thus AO was directed to return the original document of title to the assessee.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Udaya Sounds v. Pr. CIT  138 taxmann.com 415/287 Taxman 251/444 ITR 428 (Ker.) (para 8) followed.
List of Cases Referred to
- Udaya Sounds v. Pr. CIT  138 taxmann.com 415/287 Taxman 251/444 ITR 428 (Ker.) (para 8).
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied