TMI Blog1978 (11) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s organised and conducted on the business and residential premises of M/s. Boolchand Fakir Chand, Dhampur, and its four partners who were brothers. This raid and the consequent search took place on August 20, 1976; as a result, a large amount of cash, documents, gold and ornaments were seized. A notice was issued under s. 132(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961, to the firm to explain the acquisition of vari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, filed objections supported by affidavits stating that some of the assets seized belonged to them. They were not the property of the firm. The ITO in the course of his order passed under s. 132(5) rejected these various claims. The objectors filed applications under s. 132(11) of the Act on or about 10th December, 1976, before the CIT, Lucknow. He by an order dated 2nd May, 1978, dismissed all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decide their objections on merits. Their objections could not be dismissed in limine on the ground that the assessment of the firm has been finalised or that the grievance of the objectors does not arise out of the order passed by the ITO under s. 132(5) of the Act. The submission made on behalf of the objectors is well-founded and is supported by an authority of this court in Hari Kishan v. Not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
