"Release of Seized Cash, Jewellery, and Books of Accounts Renders Jurisdictional Question Infructuous.

These Civil Appeals are in response to a judgment by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dated May 8, 2002. The main issue at hand is whether the Additional Director (Investigation) has the authority to authorize search and seizure under Section 132(1) (of Income Tax Act, 1961). The High Court ruled that the Additional Director lacked the power to issue such authorization, declaring a specific notification as void. However, the matter has become academic as the Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, has issued orders for the release of cash, jewellery, and books of accounts seized during the search and seizure operation. These orders signify the finality of the assessment and tax recovery process. Consequently, the Supreme Court finds the principal question to be moot and does not proceed to examine the issues raised in the appeals. The questions of law raised are left open, and the appeals are dismissed as infructuous with no costs imposed.

These Civil Appeals are directed against the judgment of the Division

Bench of the Delhi High Court dated 8th May, 2002.

The principal question which arises for consideration in these Civil

Appeals is whether the Additional Director (Investigation) has the requisite

jurisdiction to authorize any officer to effect search and seizure in purported exercise of his power conferred upon him under Section 132(1) (of Income Tax Act, 1961), as it stood at the relevant time?

In these Civil Appeals we are concerned with the Assessment Year

1997-1998. In the impugned judgment it has been held, inter alia, that the

Additional Director (Investigation) did not have the power to issue any

authorization or warrant to Joint Director as he did not have any statutory

authority to issue such authorization or warrant.

Consequently, the High Court declared the Notification dated 6th

September, 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 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) for release of cash, for release of jewellery and for release of books of accounts that were seized during the search and seizure operation conducted under Section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In that connection, three orders were issued.

They indicate that the matter is final so far as the assessment and tax

recovery is concerned.

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.

Subject to above, Civil Appeals are dismissed as infructuous with no

order as to costs.

[ S.H. KAPADIA ]

New Delhi,

September 30, 2008 [ B. SUDERSHAN REDDY ]