https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=82234 The court examined the validity of search and seizure u/s 132, focusing on the scope of Revenue's power and the "reasons to believe" requirement. It held that the 'satisfaction note' lacked material relating to discrete inquiry and information gathered, failing to reflect the basis for believing the petitioners would not disclose possession of money. The court distinguished "reasons to believe" from "reasons to suspect," emphasizing that the competent authority must have cogent incriminating material prior to seizure to record satisfaction. Mere suspicion or unexplained possession of amount cannot justify action u/s 132. Consequently, the impugned search and seizure was set aside, and the seized amount ordered to be returned, without precluding further lawful proceedings against the petitioners. en-us Tue, 15 Oct 2024 08:39:03 +0530 Tue, 15 Oct 2024 08:39:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=82234 The court examined the validity of search and seizure u/s 132, focusing on the scope of Revenue's power and the "reasons to believe" requirement. It held that the 'satisfaction note' lacked material relating to discrete inquiry and information gathered, failing to reflect the basis for believing the petitioners would not disclose possession of money. The court distinguished "reasons to believe" from "reasons to suspect," emphasizing that the competent authority must have cogent incriminating material prior to seizure to record satisfaction. Mere suspicion or unexplained possession of amount cannot justify action u/s 132. Consequently, the impugned search and seizure was set aside, and the seized amount ordered to be returned, without precluding further lawful proceedings against the petitioners. Highlights Income Tax Tue, 15 Oct 2024 08:39:03 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=82234