Reason to believe to conduct search not to be disclosed to to any person or any authority or the Appellate Tribunal. Explanation added to section 132, 132A
Budget 2017-18 : Reason to believe to conduct a search, etc. not to be disclosed
Sub-section (1) and (1A) of section 132 provide that where an authority mentioned therein, based on the information in his possession, has ‘reason to believe’ or ‘reason to suspect’ of circumstances referred to in the said sub-sections, he may authorize an authority specified therein to carry out search & seizure.
Similarly, sub-section (1) of section 132A provides that the specified income-tax authority based on ‘reason to believe’ can authorise other income-tax authority mentioned therein to requisition from some other officer or authority to deliver books of account, documents or assets of the assessee to the income-tax authority so authorised.
Confidentiality and sensitivity are the hallmarks of proceedings under section 132 and section 132A. However, certain judicial pronouncements have created ambiguity in respect of the disclosure of ‘reason to believe’ or ‘reason to suspect’ recorded by the income-tax authority to conduct a search under section 132 or to make requisition under section 132A. It is therefore proposed to insert an Explanation to sub-section (1) and to sub-section (1A) of section 132 and to sub-section (1) of section 132A to declare that the ‘reason to believe’ or ‘reason to suspect’, as the case may be, shall not be disclosed to any person or any authority or the Appellate Tribunal.
These amendments will take effect retrospectively from the date of enactment of the said provisions viz. to sub-section (1) of section 132 from 1st day of April, 1962 and to sub-section (1A) of section 132 and to sub-section (1) of section 132A from 1st day of October, 1975.
Lokayukta Police not an ‘intelligence and security’ organisation and hence not exempt from disclosure of information under RTI Act 2005…
Payment of imprest whether a transfer within the meaning of section 269ST – case remanded for determination In a recent…
CA Misconduct – Appellate order quashed as final judgment was not passed by same members who heard arguments. In a…
Deceased homemaker can not be considered as dependant for award of compensation under MV Act. Courts to award a composite…
CIT Revision notice u/s 263 quashed as the Assessing Officer rightly taken DVO value of property sold as actual sale…
Extension of timeline for implementation of mandatory "Ship To GSTIN" and Voluntary Closure of E-Way Bill functionalities GSTN Advisory dated…