2019 (4) TMI 818

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. It has been stated that there was no warrant of authorization in the name of the petitioners nor there was any reason to believe that undisclosed income was maintained or kept in the locker of petitioners No.1 and 2, which was seized by respondent No.5. 3. The petitioners have also stated that the entire search and seizure operation was contrary to the law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of ITO v/s Lakhmani Mewal Das reported in 1976 (103) ITR 437. Petitioners No.1 and 2 both are the income tax assessee and they have enclosed the search warrant which is subject matter of the petition. The petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- (A) Issue a writ in nature of mand....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of Smt. Sumedha Dutta and Shri Sunil Dutta. A separate warrant was issued by the competent authority. 6. The respondents have further stated that search and seizure operation was carried out as per the provisions as contained under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondents have further stated that search and seizure was carried in the case of Shriji Polymer (India) Limited, Ujjain i.e. (Anand Bangur Group). M/s Betarstep, wherein Shri Kovid Dutta, son of the petitioners is one of the Director of the Company and he is closely associated with Shri Anand Bangur. Hence, on the basis of information and bank details, a discrete inquiry was conducted and the residential premises of Shri Kovid Dutta situated at 94/1 Chandralok ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ity and acceptability of information on which satisfaction reached, is not permissible in writ jurisdiction. The scope of interference has been dealt with in depth by the Apex Court. 10. The Apex Court in the case of Dr. Pratap Singh & Another v/s Director of Enforcement & Others reported in AIR 1985 SC 989 has held that illegality, if any, does not vitiate the evidence collected during the search. 11. The Orissa High Court in the case of Aditya Narayan Mahasupakar v/s Chief Commissioner of Income Tax & Others reported in 2017 (392) ITR 131 (Orissa) was dealing with the issue of search and seizure with specific reference to warrant of authorization and it has been held that the High Court should not go into the sufficiency and insuffi....