TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (4) TMI 18
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irms, In all these petitions under art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners challenge the search and seizure made by the authorised officers of the I.T. Department on May 12, 1981, under s. 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The firm, M/s. Naraindas Shri Vallabhdas, carries on business in oil, oilseeds, sugar, kirana, grains, etc., at Katni. It consists of three partners, viz., Naraindas Gattani, Shri Vallabdas Gattani and Shyam Sunder Gattani, who are all brothers. The firm, M/s . Venkatesh Trading Co., consists of five partners. They are : (1) Bhagwandas Maheshwari who is the sister's son of Naraindas Gattani, (2) Savitri Devi Gattani who is the wife of Naraindas Gattani, (3) Ghanshyamdas Gattani who is the son of Shri Vallabhdas Gattani,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....b) and (c), and the reasons recorded by the Commissioner did not show that he had satisfied himself as to the requirements of these provisions. On May 10, 1981, the Assistant Director (Inspection and Intelligence) submitted a detailed report that M/s. Venkatesh Trading Co. and its sister concerns were engaged in purchasing coal in fictitious names and selling them in black-market and that this business was carried on outside the books of account. On receiving this report, the Commissioner, on May 10, 1981, recorded at the foot of the report the following : " I have considered the facts of the case. My information is that this group of assessees has been getting allotment of coal in the names of over a dozen bogus concerns. The coal so....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, that they maintain record of this business and that they were in possession of unaccounted wealth in the shape of cash and jewellery. It is true that the words " has reason to believe " do not occur in the record made by the Commissioner, but his conclusion that " this is a fit case for search under section 132 " and his direction to put up authorisations for his signatures and his signing the same in Form No. 45 clearly make out that he was fully satisfied of the necessity of the action to be taken under s. 132(1)(b) and (c). It may here be mentioned that the form which the Commissioner signed opens with the words " whereas information has been laid before me and on the consideration thereof I have reason to believe ". The deficiency, i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not be produced if summons or notice was issued for its production under the provisions of the Act. This argument is also devoid of any merit. If the Commissioner had reason to believe that clandestine business in coal was being carried on by the group for assessees for which they maintained accounts, there was obvious reason to believe that such account would not be produced if the assessees were called upon to produce it by notice or summons issued under the Act for the simple reason that a tax evader does not normally do so. The question relating to validity of search and seizure under s. 132 was dealt with by the Supreme Court in ITO v. Seth Brothers [1969] 74 ITR 836. The decision of the Supreme Court in this case makes it clear th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tain financial deals, may be justified in entertaining the reasonable belief that the assessee, if called upon to produce the necessary documents, will not produce the same. Having regard to the facts, in the instant case, and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in these cases, we are not prepared to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the authorisations issued by the Commissioner under s. 132(1)(b) and (c) were invalid. Learned counsel for the petitioners cited some other cases, but they proceed upon different facts and we do not find it necessary to burden our judgment with those cases when the principles for application of s. 132 and for judging the validity of any action taken under that se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion, none of these objections can be reasonably sustained or can make the search and seizure illegal. It is stated in the return that the names of the witnesses were suggested by the petitioners. They wanted that outsiders should not be called as that would have effected their credit and prestige. The petitioners cannot now complain that the witnesses suggested by them were not respectable persons of the locality. As regards the inventory of the books and other documents seized, the return discloses that after the seizure of books and documents, Naraindas said that he was not feeling well and that the work of preparing the inventory could not be carried on. Naraindas requested that the books and documents be kept in a box and that he will h....