1975 (12) TMI 3

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... bankers". Its principal place of business is said to be at Mehmedabad, with branches at Surat and Bombay. The petitioners applied for registration of the firm on April 7, 1971, and had time to file their return of income up to June 30, 1972. It has been claimed that the firm had large sums of money in cash as well as "hundis" and other bills of exchange which formed its stock-in-trade and that there was no justification for thinking that it would not do what was required to be done under the law relating to income-tax. The firm had a sum of Rs. 12,00,000 as cash on January 10, 1972, which is said to have been duly entered in its books of account in the Bombay branch office. The grievance of the petitioners is that some of the respondents e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tive authority. The petitioners have also prayed for the restoration of the property which has been seized by the income-tax authorities. It has been pointed out in the petition that three similar writ petitions were pending in this court, including Writ Petition No. 446 of 1971, Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (Investigation). The respondents have admitted the search and the seizure of the property, but have stated that this was done because the Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-I, respondent No. 1, had reasons to believe that the petitioners would not produce their books of account, etc., even though they would be useful to the department for taking proceedings under the Act. It has also been stated that there was enough materia....