1975 (8) TMI 37

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... showed him an order signed by respondent No. 1 authorising them to conduct a search of the house under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called "the Act"). The petitioner allowed this house to be searched upon which respondents Nos. 2 and 3 recovered and seized the articles mentioned in the list marked as annexure "P-1" accompanying the pet tion. Some jewellery was also found from the premises, the details of which are mentioned in a list attached to the petition and marked as annexure "P-2". This list is signed by the Authorised Officer and contains the following note: "The above items of jewellery have been returned to Shri Anand Swaroop, advocate, and thus have not been seized under telephonic instructions of Shri ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The petitioner has challenged the search of his house, seizure of articles therefrom and the order passed under section 132(5) of the Act against him on the grounds that there could possibly have been no information with the Commissioner of Income-tax for coming to the necessary belief under section 132(1), clause (a), (b) or (c) of the Act. It was also averred that the Authorised Officer did not apply his mind at the time when he seized the assets. Reliance in this connection has been placed on a judgment rendered in C.W. No. 150 of 1975, H. L. Sibal v. Commissioner of Income-tax decided by us on July 15, 1975. In that case, we held as under: (a) The existence of necessary facts on the basis of which the Commissioner of Income-tax co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e issuance of the authorisation for conducting the search of the premises of Shri Sibal was declared illegal. For the reasons mentioned in that case, we feel no hesitation in declaring that there was no justification for the Commissioner of Income-tax to authorise the search of the premises of the petitioner. The other reason which impels us to take this view is that the following note purported to have been recorded by the Commissioner of Income-tax on October 7, 1974, appears on the file where the case of the petitioner is discussed: Submits returns on estimate, does not co-relate fees with briefs. One of the top lawyers. Strange he is not a wealth-tax assessee. There is no jewellery. This needs looking into along with the fees earned ....