TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 181
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CM-19542-2021 in CWP-24093-2021 Prayer in these applications is for permission to place on record Annexures P-15 to P-16. Application is allowed subject to just exceptions. Annexures P-15 to P-16 are taken on record. CM-19540-2021 in CWP-24095-2021 Prayer in these applications is for permission to place on record Annexures P-15 to P-16. Application is allowed subject to just exceptions. Annexures P-15 to P-16 are taken on record. CWP Nos.22812, 23329, 24093 and 24095 of 2021 By this order, we propose to decide four writ petitions i.e. CWP Nos.22812, 23329, 24093 and 24095 of 2021 as the challenge in these writ petitions is to the search conducted of petitioner in CWP No.22812 of 2021 under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as '1961 Act') on 13.12.2020, notices dated 30.07.2021 issued under Section 153-A of the 1961 Act, notice dated 21.10.2021 under Section 142 (1) of the 1961 Act and rejection order dated 02.11.2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Chandigarh-respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent No.1') for the assessment period 2015-16 to 2020-21, search con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en pleaded that the requisite of Section 132 of the 1961 Act is 'reason to believe', which is integral to 'information' in possession of the concerned authority before any action can be taken under this Section. Absence of any of these two ingredients would render the search of the petitioner(s) conducted on them illegal and, thus, liable to be struck down. Challenge has also been posed to the order disposing of the objections of the petitioner(s) on the ground of non-application of mind and requisites of speaking order. 4. It has been stated that the genesis of the search which has been conducted upon the petitioner(s) lay in a land deed undertaken by M/s. Avensis Exports Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'company') in which none of the petitioner(s) or their family member(s) is/are shareholders/directors and, therefore, there is no relationship, business or otherwise, with the company. In the search which has been carried out, no incriminating document was found from the petitioner(s). After the search having been conducted, respondent No.1 has assumed jurisdiction under Section 153 of the 1961 Act and issued impugned notices for the block period 2015-16 to 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of information which is not relatable to the person concerned. Counsel for the petitioner for this has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DGIT (Investigation) Versus Spacewood Furnishers P. Ltd. (2015) 374 ITR 595 (SC); ITO Versus Seth Brothers 1969 (74) ITR 836 (SC) and Pratap Singh Versus Director of Enforcement (1985) 155 ITR 166 (SC). 6. Learned counsel for the respondent had produced the original records for perusal of this Court, which had been retained by us. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the requirement of the statute stands fulfilled and, therefore, no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. He acknowledges that the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which have been referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner, would be applicable to the case in hand for testing the validity of the challenged notices. 7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, have gone through the pleadings as also the records which have been produced by the respondent. 8. The principles as have been laid down ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....other documents even if summons or notice is issued to him. OR (b) such person is in possession of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article which represents either wholly or partly income or property which has not been or would not be disclosed. (ii) Such information must be in possession of the authorized official before the opinion is formed. (iii) There must be application of mind to the material and the formation of opinion must be honest and bonafide. Consideration of any extraneous or irrelevant material will vitiate the belief/satisfaction. (iv) Though Rule 112(2) of the Income Tax Rules which specifically prescribed the necessity of recording of reasons before issuing a warrant of authorization had been repealed on and from 1st October, 1975 the reasons for the belief found should be recorded. (v) The reasons, however, need not be communicated to the person against whom the warrant is issued at that stage. (vi) Such reasons, however, may have to be placed before the Court in the event of a challenge to formation of the belief of the authorized official in which event the court (exercising jurisdiction under Arti....