Officials must have objective satisfaction based on concrete facts for Income Tax searches under Section 132

The Gauhati HC dismissed writ petitions challenging search proceedings under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act. The court held that authorized officials must have objective satisfaction based on firm, concrete facts regarding undisclosed income, not arbitrary or subjective beliefs. The absence of incriminating materials during search does not invalidate the initial formation of opinion to exercise search powers, though it affects subsequent assessment procedures as per SC precedent in Abhisar Buildwell. The court ruled that fulfillment of statutory conditions provides adequate safeguards, and harassment allegations cannot nullify lawful search powers when prerequisites are met.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the search and seizure conducted on 20/11/2017.
2. Formation of opinion under Section 132(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Relevance of previous searches conducted in 2015.
4. Judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Summary:

Legality of the Search and Seizure Conducted on 20/11/2017:
The petitioners challenged the search and seizure operations conducted on 20/11/2017 under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. They argued that the search was arbitrary and illegal, as no new incriminating evidence was found during the 2015 search, and the 2017 search was merely a pretence to harass them. The Income Tax Department contended that the search was justified based on new information regarding long-term capital gains and other financial irregularities.

Formation of Opinion Under Section 132(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The court examined the formation of the opinion for the 2017 search and found that it was based on information about bogus long-term capital gains and other financial discrepancies. The court referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) and Others Vs. Laljibhai Kanjibhai Mandalia, which outlined that the formation of opinion must be honest and bona fide, based on relevant information and materials in possession of the authorized official.

Relevance of Previous Searches Conducted in 2015:
The court noted that the materials and information leading to the 2015 search were related to suppression of turnover, inflation of prices, and inclusion of bogus creditors. The 2017 search was based on new information regarding long-term capital gains, which was not covered in the 2015 search. The court held that the existence of previous searches does not invalidate the legality of subsequent searches if new information justifies them.

Judicial Review Under Article 226 of the Constitution:
The court reiterated the limited scope of judicial review in matters of search and seizure under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It emphasized that the court's role is to examine whether the reasons for the formation of the belief were honest and bona fide, not to assess the sufficiency or adequacy of the reasons. The court found that the Income Tax Department had sufficient materials and information to justify the search and seizure operations conducted in 2017.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the search and seizure conducted on 20/11/2017 were within the confines of the law. The court emphasized that the dismissal of the writ petitions does not affect the assessments carried out pursuant to the search and seizure or the decisions rendered by the Appellate Authority. The records produced were returned to the learned counsel for the Income Tax Department.

---