TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (4) TMI 960
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ses of the petitioner at Bhavnagar, search was conducted by the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence ("the DGCEI" for short) on August 12, 2010, starting at about 11 a.m. During the course of such search, the officials of the Excise Department found cash of around Rs. 18.50 lakhs in the premises of the petitioner. When the search was going on one Shri Ishwarbhai Bharodia entered the premises of the petitioner carrying Rs. 6 lakhs in cash. It appears that the excise officers tipped of the income-tax authorities who with the team of the income-tax officials visited the premises, according to the petitioner, at around 4 p.m. on the same day. It is not in dispute that at that time such officials did not have authorisation o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Act were fulfilled. The entire authorisation was, therefore, invalid. He submitted that the authority could not have had any reason to believe that search was necessary for reasons stated in clause (a), (b) or (c) of sub- section(1) of section 132. He drew our attention to the documents on record to contend that while search of the Excise Department was going on upon finding cash in the premises of the petitioner, the Income-tax Officers intervened. They were present since 4 p.m. whereas the search authorisation was issued only at 8 p.m. He drew our attention to other provisions of the Act to contend that there was sufficient power with the authorities to cover the case of unaccounted cash, search and seizure operations havi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rved that the Commissioner while acting under section 132(1) must come into possession of some new material before he can take resort to drastic measure of issuing a search warrant. When he received some relevant new information, it would perhaps be permissible for him to look in to the old record for his satisfaction but it is extremely doubtful if he can give his own interpretation to the circumstances on the basis of which assessments have been framed against an assessee for previous years for the purpose of issuing a search warrant. (3) In the case of Vindhya Metal Corporation v. CIT reported in [1985] 156 ITR 233 (All), wherein the Bench observed that the existence or otherwise of the condition precedent for exercise of power....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n possession of individual, will not be information sufficient for action under section 132 of the Act. (6) In the case of Dr. Mrs. Anita Sahai v. Director of Income-tax (Investigation) reported in [2004] 266 ITR 597 (All), wherein the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that the Income-tax Department had acted only on rumours. The petitioners therein were leading doctors of Noida having huge practice and were regularly assessed to tax and had filed the income-tax returns. It was observed that there had been indiscriminate seizure without any application of mind. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel Shri Manish Bhatt appearing for the Revenue relied on the affidavit-in-reply as well as the original note-sheet to co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....one and directs him to reach at the business premises of M/s. Deepak Enterprises and also to contact Mr. G. Philips, Intelligence Officer of DGCEI on telephone. 12-8-2010 (4 p.m.) After talking with Mr. G. Philips, the ADIT (Inv.) reaches the said premises and finds the team of the DGCEI conducting search. The team of DGCEI informs that cash amounting to Rs. 24,50,000 has been found. 12-8-2010 (5 p.m.) Mr. Dipin G. Patel, Prop. of M/s. Deepak Enterprises is questioned about the source of cash of Rs. 24,50,000. He has not been able to explain the entire cash as the cash book was not written up to date. The Jt. DIT (Inv.), is informed about this discrepancy. 12-8-2010 (7. 45 p.m.) Warrant of authorisation under section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tes and recorded his satisfaction that he had reason to believe that the requirements of section 132(1)(c) are satisfied. He, therefore, proposed to issue warrant of authorisation under sub-section (1) of section 132. However, as per the CBDT's instructions, he directed that note be put up for the DGIT (Investigation), Ahmedabad, for administrative approval. This in turn was placed before the DGIT (Investigation), Ahmedabad, after perusal of the notes by the DDIT, by the Joint DIT and by the DIT (Investigation). He thereupon granted approval for issuance of authorisation. Thereupon, search was authorised. 6. We have perused the satisfaction note. We have also perused further notes recorded by the higher income-tax authorities. We ....