New Delhi, Apr 12 (IBNS) During the financial year (FY) 2011-12, the
Investigation Directorates of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) said it
conducted searches on 330 groups involved in different businesses / activities.
On the basis of assets, documents and other evidence unearthed during such
searches, undisclosed income exceeding Rs.9,200 crore was detected. Number of
search warrants executed in FY 2011-12 was 5,132 as against 4,852 warrants
executed in FY 2010-11.
Unaccounted assets of the value of Rs.880 crore (including cash amounting to
Rs.500 crore) were seized in FY 2011-12 as against assets of the value of Rs.775
crore (including cash amounting to Rs.440 crore) seized in FY 2010-11.
In the last three financial years (FY 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12), undisclosed
income of Rs.28,040 crore has been detected by the Investigation Directorates of
the Central Board of Direct Taxes(CBDT).
Several searches were conducted on the basis of information received relating to
assets held abroad by tax residents of India.
Disclosure of details regarding assets held abroad is being made mandatory in
the income tax returns. Non-furnishing of such information in the income tax
returns, and its subsequent detection, will invariably lead to prosecution under
the Income Tax Act.
Searches are conducted under the Income Tax Act on the basis of credible
information regarding tax evasion after conducting necessary verification, said
an official statement on Thursday.
Information technology tools such as ITDMS have been developed and are being
extensively utilized to process and verify information before taking intrusive
The Supreme Court of India, in a Civil Appeal, has observed that any bona fide
measures taken in public interest, and to provide public safety or to prevent
circulation of black money, cannot be objected as interference with the personal
liberty or freedom of a citizen.
Due to intrusive action, such as searches in residences or at airports, “certain
hardship and inconvenience is inevitable, and should be accepted with grace,
patience, and discipline” as it is for the citizen’s “own interest”, observed
the apex court.