1991 (11) TMI 51 - HC - Income Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the authorisation issued u/s 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Conduct of search and seizure operations.
3. Allegations of harassment and wrongful confinement.
4. Validity of seizure of documents, cash, and jewellery.

Summary:

1. Legality of the Authorisation Issued u/s 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The court examined whether the authorisation for search and seizure issued by the Director (Investigation), Income-tax Department, complied with the provisions of section 132(1) of the Act. The petitioners contended that the authorisation lacked a reasonable basis and did not meet the criteria under clauses (a), (b), or (c) of section 132(1). The court noted that the satisfaction note by the Director of Investigation failed to provide tangible reasons or information to justify the belief that the petitioners had undisclosed income or assets. The court emphasized that the belief must be based on reliable information and not mere suspicion or gossip. The court concluded that the authorisation was not in accordance with the law and quashed it.

2. Conduct of Search and Seizure Operations:
The petitioners alleged that the search at their residence and office was conducted in an objectionable manner, with excessive force and without proper justification. The court found that the search was based on false information, particularly the claim that the house at 14, Anand Lok was under demolition, which was proven incorrect by a local commissioner's report. The court held that the search and seizure operations were conducted without proper verification of facts and amounted to an abuse of power.

3. Allegations of Harassment and Wrongful Confinement:
The petitioners, especially petitioner No. 1, a senior advocate, claimed that they were harassed and wrongfully confined during the search. The court noted that petitioner No. 1 was not allowed to attend to his professional duties in the High Court, which amounted to wrongful confinement. The court emphasized that the Income-tax Department does not have the authority to arrest or confine individuals during search operations and criticized the over-zealousness of the raiding party.

4. Validity of Seizure of Documents, Cash, and Jewellery:
The court examined the seizure of cash and jewellery during the search. It found that the seizure was not justified as the satisfaction note did not provide a valid basis for believing that the petitioners possessed undisclosed income or assets. The court directed the respondents to return all seized documents, cash, and jewellery to the petitioners within two weeks.

Conclusion:
The court issued a writ of mandamus quashing the impugned authorisation and the subsequent actions taken by the respondents, including the seizure of documents, cash, and jewellery. The petitioners were entitled to costs, and the respondents were directed to return the seized items within two weeks.