TMI Blog1979 (4) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r s. 132(5) of the Act read with r. 112A of the I.T. Rules, 1962, be declared as illegal and a mandamus be issued to the respondents to return the seized property to her. The facts that are not in dispute can be stated thus. The petitioner is the mother of Kewal Krishan and Narain Dutt Dhablania who resided along with her in one residential premises. Respondent No. 1, the CIT, Patiala, on being allegedly satisfied in terms of s. 132(1) of the Act issued search and seizure warrants authorising respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to effect the search of the aforesaid two sons of the petitioner and the premises mentioned in the search warrants being used by them as their residential house. During the course of search in pursuance of the said warrants a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wealth-tax assessee. On this information, respondent No. 1 being satisfied that authorisation under s. 132(1)(b) and (c) of the Act was necessary to be issued against the petitioner, on 17th August, 1975, in the afternoon, search and seizure warrants in her name also were issued to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and the discovered items of jewellery and documents were seized in her hands. On behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Kuldip Singh, the learned counsel, has advanced two contentions : (i) that there was no information with the CIT, respondent No. 1, from which he could be satisfied that action under s. 132(1) of the Act was necessary against the petitioner ; and (ii) that the assets that had been seized in the hands of the petitioner had alre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of the search warrants against the petitioner's sons who were living in the same premises with her before the search and seizure warrants in her name for search against her were issued by respondent No. 1. The question that falls for determination is as to whether in law the Commissioner would be within his right in the circumstances to authorize seizure of such of the assets as had been claimed by the petitioner as owned by her. In my opinion, to deny such an authority to the CIT under s. 132(1) would tantamount to render the provisions of s. 132(1) almost totally ineffective, for, if the contention is accepted, then in a given case where adult members of one family jointly live in the same premises which are searched as a result of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f search and seizure warrants against the person in whose hands the discovered items are seized. The provision, in my opinion, envisages that the search of the premises has to be a valid and authorised search in that there must be legal and valid search warrants for searching the premises in question of the persons who on information are believed to reside therein or occupy the same and the person in whose hands, as a result of belated search and seizure warrants, discovered items are seized does not live and occupy such an exclusive portion in the given premises as can be demarcated from the premises of the person against whom the search and seizure warrants had been initially issued. In the present case, it is the assertion of the respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
