TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1980 (5) TMI 9
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thorisation were issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax/Director of Inspection to carry out simultaneous searches at the office and residential premises of the petitioners. These warrants were shown to the petitioners at their place of residence at 57, Jor Bagh, New Delhi. Searches and seizures were effected at Akash Deep Building, Ansal Bhawan, 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg and Uphar Cinema at Green Park Market. In searches at 57, Jor Bagh, on 18th December, 1973, which continued up to 10.00 P. M., currency notes value at more than Rs. 1,00,000, silver utensils worth Rs. 2,800 and jewellery of more than Rs. 42,000 belonging to Shrimati Suraj Kumari, wife of the first petitioner and jewellery worth over Rs. 24,000 belonging to Shrimathi Kusum ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sage of time the Commissioner who had authorised the searches and seizures is no longer holding the said office and we have not had the advantage of examining his affidavit. In all other reported cases of a similar type where the warrant of authorisation his been impugned, the relevant affidavit has come from the concerned official. Nevertheless, in spite of the affidavit being by an ITO who was not concerned with the actual searches and seizures, we have examined the correct position in order to determine the validity of the searches and seizures. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the searches were not preceded by a proper authorisation. Section 132(1) reads as follows : " 132. (1) Where the Director of Ins....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e or property)." This provision shows that in three different cases when the Commissioner or other authority acting under the section has reason to believe that conditions exist, then he can issue the authorisation for carrying out the search. It is the case of the petitioners that none of these conditions existed and reference has been made to the case-law which has developed under this section. It has also been contended that the subjective satisfaction of the Commissioner is subject to the scrutiny of the court. From the file, we find that there was some material on the record suggesting that there was concealed income. It also appears that after the information had been documented the Commissioner wanted certain further information a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... valuable things, but some of them have been returned whereas the cash has been retained. In N. K. Textile Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1966] 62 ITR 58, the Punjab High Court held the search and seizure to be invalid. This was so, because the affidavit of the Commissioner was found to be defective. It was also held that there was an indiscriminate seizure which went beyond the scope of the authorisation which rendered the seizure invalid. It was also doubted that there was any information that could reasonably lead to the inference that a search was necessary. These circumstances do not exist in the present case. In H. L. Sibal v. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 112 (P & H), the search and seizure was held to be mala fide in the circumstances of the case. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ount of Rs. 1,00,000 has been dealt with in an order passed by the ITO under the provisions of s. 132(5). The other property has been returned, i.e., the jewellery belonging to the wives of the two petitioners and the silver utensils. Apparently, the only thing retained is the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 cash, a list of share certificates which in any case is not the original shares and some account books. We have not been told how the documents and account books were outside the scope of the search. In fact, the search was for discovering a duplicate set of books, so neither the authorisation nor the scope of the search itself can be said to be beyond the scope of the section. Hence, we cannot strike down the search. There is an order under s. ....