2008 (3) TMI 264

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se were as under :- (a) In pursuance of authorisation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act issued by the Deputy Director of Inspection (Inv.) Unit-I, New Delhi, a search was carried out on 25.8.1987 at room No.2214 at Maurya Sheraton Hotel, Delhi, which was then occupied by the petitioner. During the course of search, cash amount of Rs.4,99,900/- out of the total cash amount of Rs.5,00,000/- came to be seized. A single note of Rs.100/- was not seized as the same was found in damaged condition. (b) It was the allegation of the authority that the petitioner had come to Delhi from Bombay on 25.8.1987 by the morning flight of Indian Airlines and checked in Maurya Sheraton Hotel at 3.30 P.M.  At the time of commencement of operation un....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er was in possession of any cash. It was contended that the 1st respondent has nothing to do with the assessment of the petitioner and he could have any reason to believe that the petitioner was in possession of such cash. In reply to this contention, Counsel appearing for the respondents has drawn our attention to the averments made in paragraph 12 of the affidavit in reply dated 29.9.1997 affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Aaykar Bhavan. It is asserted in the said reply that respondent no.1 was authorised the search on the basis of material available with him and he had reasonable belief that the petitioner was in possession of undisclosed money and had satisfied himself before authorising the search. Though the petitioner....