9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the search conducted u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Jurisdiction of the notice issued u/s 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Summary: Issue 1: Legality of the Search Conducted u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 The primary question was whether the search of the petitioner's premises was vitiated due to the lack of information or material as required u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner, an assessee since 1961, contended that the search and seizure were illegal and without jurisdiction, arguing that the competent authority had no information leading to a belief that he possessed undisclosed income. The respondents, however, claimed that the search was based on information available on record and that the conditions precedent for issuing a search warrant u/s 132(1) were satisfied. Upon review, the court found that the "satisfaction note" and the warrants of authorisation did not constitute sufficient information as required by law. The note merely speculated that the petitioner's son-in-law, Mr. Bhardwaj, might have invested ill-gotten funds in the petitioner's businesses. The court concluded that this was a conjecture without any factual basis. Despite repeated opportunities, the respondents failed to produce any substantive information or evidence. Consequently, the court held that the action of the respondents in conducting the search was not in conformity with the provisions of section 132 of the Act. Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the Notice Issued u/s 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 The petitioner also challenged the jurisdiction of the notice issued u/s 131 by respondent No. 6. The court noted that all books of account and documents seized during the search had already been returned to the petitioner, rendering the issue academic. Therefore, the court did not delve into the jurisdictional validity of the notice. Conclusion The court held that the search of the petitioner's premises was wholly illegal as the conditions precedent for exercising power u/s 132 were not satisfied. The writ petition was allowed, and the petitioner was awarded costs quantified at Rs. 10,000, symbolizing the vindication of his stand.
|
