9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the warrant of authorization issued u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act. 2. Validity of the follow-up actions including the search and restraint order u/s 132(3). Summary: Issue 1: Legality of the Warrant of Authorization Issued u/s 132 The petitioner, a professor and eminent surgeon, sought to quash the warrant of authorization issued u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act. The court examined whether the conditions precedent for action u/s 132 were met, specifically if there was "information in the possession of the authority in consequence of which he may have reason to believe" that the petitioner possessed undisclosed income. The court found that the information leading to the authorization was general and not supported by tangible material. The report relied upon by the Director was based on rumors and general complaints from 1985, which were not verified or substantiated. The court emphasized that "reason to believe" must be based on valid and linked information, not mere pretence or subjective satisfaction. The Director's mechanical endorsement of the Assistant Director's report without independent verification was deemed insufficient to justify the warrant. Issue 2: Validity of Follow-Up Actions Including the Search and Restraint Order u/s 132(3) The search conducted on May 26, 1987, and the subsequent restraint order u/s 132(3) were also scrutinized. The court noted that the search yielded only modest assets, which did not align with the Department's allegations of substantial undisclosed income. The court criticized the Department for acting on unverified information and highlighted the importance of protecting citizens' privacy. The court concluded that the actions taken were not justified as they were based on conjecture rather than concrete evidence. The court reiterated that any intrusion into a person's home must be backed by reasonable belief grounded in trustworthy and sufficient information. Separate Judgment by OM PRAKASH J. OM PRAKASH J. added a cautionary note, emphasizing the need for the Department to thoroughly verify the credibility and accuracy of information before acting on it. He stressed that privacy is a valuable right and should not be violated based on unsubstantiated estimates or guesses. The judgment underscored that the Director of Inspection should have critically assessed the information before endorsing the search. Conclusion: The petition was allowed, and the warrant of authorization u/s 132 and the restraint order u/s 132(3) were quashed. The court highlighted the necessity for the Department to adhere to statutory requirements and ensure that actions are based on reliable and verified information to avoid unwarranted intrusions into citizens' privacy. No order as to costs was made.
|
