TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 987
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2) requiring the Petitioner to file returns for the Assessment Years (AYs) 2006-07 to 2011-12. The Petitioner also seeks a writ of prohibition to restrain the Respondents from taking further proceedings pursuant to the aforementioned two impugned notices. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner claims to be an individual engaged in the business of horse breeding. She is a regular Assessee and is being assessed to tax under the jurisdiction of the ACIT Circle 27. It is stated that after the search operation was conducted, the case was transferred to the jurisdiction of the ACT CC-13, Respondent No.2. For the AYs 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2009-10, the Petitioner's assessments were made under Section 143(3) of the Act and no additions under section 68 to 69C were made. For the AY 2008-09, the return as filed was accepted. The Petitioner's assessments for AYs 2010-11 and 2011-12 were pending on the date, the impugned notice under Section 153 A of the Act was issued. 3. On 24th February 2012, a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act was undertaken on the residential and business premises of Mr. Suresh Nanda, his family members and business associa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... figures. She is shown as holder of locker 4979. Below the said table the DDIT noted that his opinion the lockers "may contain" such cash, jewellery, FDRs and other important documents which represent either wholly or partly income or property not disclosed or would not be disclosed for the purpose of the Act even if summons under Section 131 of the Act were issued to them. Accordingly, the DDIT requested that consequential warrants of authorization in the names of persons and lockers as mentioned in the table be issued to search/seal the above lockers in the banks. 8. This note of the DDIT was placed before the Respondent No.1 who endorsed his satisfaction and ordered the issuance of the warrants of authorization. This was followed an order being issued on 29th February, 2012 restraining the operation of the above locker. This restraining order was revoked on 11th April, 2012 in order to conduct the search. On search of the locker nothing was found. A copy of the Panchnama of that date with a questionnaire has been enclosed with the petition. )n 22nd October, 2012, a notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued requiring the Petitioner to furnish returns of total income and un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Act. This is a well settled legal position as explained in a large number of cases including CIT v. Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573. Therefore, if question (a) is answered in the negative, then question (b) has to be also answered in then negative. On the other hand, if the answer to question (a) is in the affirmative, the answer to question (b) would be likewise. 14. The Satisfaction Note preceding the issuance of the search authorisation has been summarized earlier. The law in relation to searches under Section 132 of the Act has been explained in a large number of decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Courts. The jurisdictional facts that have to be established before a search under Section 132 (1) of the Act can be authorised are that (i) the authority issuing the authorisation is in possession of some credible information, other than surmises and conjectures (ii) that the authority has reason to believe that the conditions stipulated in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 132 (1) qua the person searched exist; and (iii) the said information has nexus to such belief. 15. The Courts have laid emphasis on the mandatory nature of the above requirement to be fulfilled....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....472 (All) the search of the premises of the Petitioner's husband and his family resulted in the finding of keys to three lockers one of which stood in the couple's joint names. The jewellery found in that specific locker was valued at Rs. 6,28,861. Yet, the Court was not prepared to accept that this by itself satisfied the requirement of the law. It held: "The law is well settled that a warrant of search and seizure under Section 132(1) can only be issued on the basis of some material or information on which the Commissioner/Director has reason to believe that any person is in possession of money, jewellery or other valuable articles representing wholly or partly income or property which has not been or would not be disclosed, under the IT Act. In the present case the respondents have not disclosed what was the material or information on the basis of which the Director/Commissioner entertained the belief that the lockers contained valuable jewellery or other articles representing undisclosed income. It is well settled that the satisfaction of the authorities under Section 132 must be on the basis of relevant material or information. The word used in Section 132(1) are "rea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not been or would not be disclosed by her. The mere fact that the key to the locker which she was operating was found during the search of her uncle Mr. Suresh Nanda would not constitute 'information' leading to the reasonable belief that the locker would contain jewellery, or other valuable articles which she would not have disclosed in her returns. There obviously had to be something more. Therefore the jurisdictional pre-condition justifying the invocation of the power of search under Section 132 (1) of the Act against the Petitioner, was not fulfilled in the present case. 21. The counter affidavit filed by the Respondents suggests that they were not treating the Petitioner as part of the Nanda Group. In such event, there was no basis at all in proceeding to issue a search authorisation in the name of the Petitioner since the locker key was found during the search of the Nanda Group. Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, however, urged that this Court should not go by what is stated in the counter affidavit but only by what is stated in the Satisfaction Note. Even then, the Satisfaction Note does not throw any further light on how the authority c....