TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (11) TMI 29
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Bangalore. In pursuance of warrant issued under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in regard to the premises of Shaswathi Leasing Private Limited, a search was conducted on March 31, 1997, at the premises of the said Shaswathi Leasing Private Limited. It is stated that as the appellant was maintaining a locker, on request, he voluntarily opened the locker at the time of search conducted in the premises of Shaswathi Leasing Private Limited and the contents of the said locker were inventorised and sealed on March 31, 1997. Thereafter, a search warrant under section 132 of the Act was issued authorising search and seizure in regard to locker No. 139 maintained by the petitioner herein in the premises of Shaswathi Leasing Private Li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd on the request of the officers, the petitioner voluntarily opened the locker and permitted inventory. It is, therefore, submitted that what was done on March 31, 1997, was not a search and seizure but an inventory of the articles which was done with the concurrence of the appellant. In fact, the inventory list makes it clear that there was no seizure of any article on March 31, 1997. It is not the case of the appellant that the officers of the Department forcibly opened the locker without any warrant for purposes of taking inventory and it is not disputed that the appellant himself voluntarily opened the locker to enable the inventory at the time of executing search warrant issued in regard to Shaswathi Leasing Private Limited. The first....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be extraneous or irrelevant to the purpose of the section. If the High Court is satisfied on these two matters, the adequacy or sufficiency of the grounds will not be a matter for the High Court to investigate." A learned single judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court had occasion to consider a somewhat similar situation in Sita Devi v. CIT [1980] 122 ITR 105. In that case, a search and seizure warrant had been issued to effect the search of the residence of the two sons of the petitioner therein. During the search some hidden jewellery were discovered and the petitioner claimed that the said jewellery belonged to her. The officers who conducted the search thereafter entrusted the jewellery to her and reported the matter to the Commis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on that falls for determination is as to whether in law the Commissioner would be within his right in the circumstances to authorise seizure of such of the assets as had been claimed by the petitioner as owned by her. In my opinion, to deny such an authority to the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 132(1) would tantamount to render the provisions of section 132(1) almost totally ineffective, for, if the contention is accepted, then in a given case where adult members of one family jointly live in the same premises which are searched as a result of a search warrant against the karta of the said family or any adult member of that family and when as a result of the search huge wealth is discovered within such premises, one of the adult ....