TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (10) TMI 16
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ral Government, appears for the respondents in both the petitions and waives service of rule. At the request of the learned advocates, both the petitions are finally heard today. The petitioners in both the petitions challenge the validity of an authorisation issued by the Additional Director of Income-tax (Investigation), Ahmedabad, in favour of respondent No.2 dated June 21, 2002, under the provisions of section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). It has been submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioners that the Additional Director of Income-tax is not competent to issue such an authorisation because such an authorisation can be issued only by the Director of Income-tax under the provisions of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... decision with regard to having search in the case of members of the Asopalav group under section 132 of the Act had been taken, the respondent authorities had also come to know that J.P. Finance had certain dealings with some of the business units of the Asopalav group. So as to have more particulars and details, it was decided to have survey under the provisions of section 133A of the Act at the premises owned by the partners of J.P. Finance. Necessary orders for survey had already been passed at the time when the search had taken place under section 132 of the Act at the residence of Shri Pravinbhai Kakkad. The learned advocate, Shri J.P. Shah, appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that the satisfaction as required under the prov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the residence of the petitioners. He has shown the relevant record dealing with the satisfaction of respondent No. 1 and has submitted that the impugned action of the respondent authorities is just, legal and proper. We have heard the learned advocate and have also perused the record showing satisfaction of respondent No. 1. We have also considered the judgments cited by both the sides and as we accept the ratio of the judgments cited by them, we do not think it necessary to narrate the same as a number of judgments have been referred to by the learned advocates. So far as the facts are concerned, we may state here that upon perusal of the satisfaction note, we are not convinced that there was any justifiable reason for having a search a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....remises referred to hereinabove, i.e., 3, Vraj Vihar Flats, Beh. Navrangpura Post Office, Ahmedabad, but there was nothing to show as to why he believed that incriminating documents would be found at the residence of the petitioners. Moreover, it was open to the respondent authorities to have survey at the premises belonging to J.P. Finance, where the petitioners were doing their business, as necessary order under section 133A of the Act had already been passed. Upon perusal of the above-referred note submitted by respondent No. 2 and the satisfaction recorded by respondent No. 1, we are of the view that there is no justifiable reason for having search under the provisions of section 132 of the Act at the residence of the petitioners. The ....