Director of Income-Tax v. Dr. Nalini Mahajan, (SC) BS807632
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- S.H. Kapadia and B. Sudershan Reddy, JJ.

Civil Appeals Nos. 6410 and 6411 of 2003. D/d. 30.9.2008.

Director of Income-Tax and others - Appellants

Versus

Dr. Nalini Mahajan - Respondent

For the Applicant :- V. Shekhar, Senior Advocate (Krishan Kumar, Rahul Kaushik, A. Deb Kumar and B.V. Balaram Das, Advocates, with him).

For the Respondent :- B.B. Ahuja, Senior Advocate (D.K. Verma, S. Rajappa, D.N. Ray and Mrs. Sumita Ray, Advocates. with him).

Income Tax Act, 1961 Sections 132 and 132B Search and seizure - Jurisdiction - Question for consideration - Whether Additional Director(Investigation) has jurisdiction to authorise any officer to effect search and seizure - Commissioner Income Tax ordered release of jewellery and books of account - Matter attained finality so far assessment and recovery of tax concerned - Question become academic - No opinion expressed.

[Para 4]

ORDER

These civil appeals are directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dated May 8, 2002.

2. The principal question which arises for consideration in these civil appeals is whether the Additional Director (Investigation) has the requisite jurisdiction to authorise any officer to effect search and seizure in purported exercise of his power conferred upon him under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it stood at the relevant time?

3. In these civil appeals we are concerned with the assessment year 1997-98. In the impugned judgment it has been held, inter alia, that the Additional Director (Investigation) did not have the power to issue any authorisation or warrant to the Joint Director as he did not have any statutory authority to issue such authorisation or warrant.

4. Consequently, the High Court declared the Notification dated September 6, 1989, as void to the extent indicated in the judgment. It is this decision of the High Court, basically which is under challenge before us in these civil appeals. The above question has become academic for the simple reason that after the impugned judgment, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi, has issued order under section 132B for release of cash, for release of jewellery and for release of books of account that were seized during the search and seizure operation conducted under section 132(1) of the 1961 Act. In that connection, three orders were issued. They indicate that the matter is final so far as the assessment and tax recovery are concerned.

5. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the above question has become academic and, therefore, we are not required to examine the issues raised in these civil appeals. However, we make it clear that the questions of law raised in these civil appeals are expressly kept open. We express no opinion in that regard.

6. Subject to the above, civil appeals are dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs.

.