TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 498X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d he himself, his wife and Saroj Nursing Home are assessed to Income-tax at Lucknow. The petitioner has further alleged that for the morning of 21-2-2006, the petitioner was having an air ticket for travel from Lucknow to Delhi by Sahara Flight No. S2-6138 and the said flight was cancelled and while he was at the airport there was announcement to the effect that the passengers waiting to board the Sahara flight which was cancelled has the option to take the International Jeddah-Delhi flight and in order to avail the facility of alternative flight the petitioner got his Sahara Air ticket cancelled and bought another ticket for the International Jeddah-Delhi flight. At the security check, the petitioner was required to submit a declaration fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... admissible deductions was ₹ 7,99,410. He further submits that on 20-2-2006, the cash in possession of the petitioner was ₹ 10,07,780 and there was no material before the Income-tax authorities for initiating proceedings under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act except the information communicated by the Customs Officials. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in Dr. Mrs. Anita Sahai v. DIT (Inv.) [2004] 266 ITR 597 1 and a decision of the Delhi High Court in Ajit Jain v. Union of India [2000] 242 ITR 3022 which was affirmed by Hon ble the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ajit Jain [2003] 260 ITR 803 . 4. Sri D.D. Chopra, the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was disclosed by the petitioner at the security check counter through the declaration form. The proceedings under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act was initiated by the respondents on the basis of the communication sent by the Assistant Commissioner Amausi Air Customs, Lucknow to the Joint Director (Investigation), Income-tax Department, Lucknow. The said communication reads as under : Sub : Intimation of Cash of ₹ 10 lakhs being carried by a passenger-C/reg :- Madam, It is being brought to your kind notice that one of the passengers named Dr. Dinesh Chandra Srivastava S/o Sh. Jai Bhushan Lal, was flying on a domestic circuit from Lucknow to Delhi on an International flight AI 891 on 21-2-2006 vide Ticket No. 098-42151206 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner as well as the company, of which he was claiming to be the managing director, were regular assessees with the Income-tax Department. (p. 312) 8. This view of the Hon ble Delhi High Court has been upheld by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Ajit Jain [2003] 260 ITR 80 2. 9. Keeping in view of the above law when we examine the facts of the instant case it appears that the petitioner had declared before the custom authorities that he was carrying ₹ 10 lakh in cash in his brief case. He had also given has PAN card number to the authorities as is clear from the communication of Assistant Commissioner (Custom) Amausi Airport, Lucknow to the Joint Commissioner, Lucknow Income-tax Department, Kanpur. Theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome which was not disclosed or would not be disclosed. If the aforesaid condition is missing the Commissioner or Director of Income-tax (Investigation) will have no jurisdiction to issue the warrant of authorisation under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act. Search and seizure cannot be a fishing expedition. Before search is authorised the Director must on the relevant material have reasons to believe that the assessee has not or would not disclose his income. If the reason to believe comes into existence later, i.e., after issuance of the warrant of authorisation the entire search and seizure will be illegal. 11. In this case, there was no material except the communication of Customs Officer before the Director of Income-tax (Investiga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
