9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 132 of the Act was in the name of Gurdeep Singh Chaddha (Ponty), Rajendra Singh Chaddha, Hardeep Singh Chaddha, all sons of Late Sri Kulwant Singh and brother of petitioner no.1 as well as in the name of Ginni Chaddha, S/o Sri Narendra Singh Chaddha, brother of petitioner no.1 and M/s G.S. HUF. Based on this warrant of authorization, a search and seizure operation was conducted on 1st February, 2012 by the Assistant Director of Income Tax, Intelligence and Criminal Investigation ND, respondent no.2 on 1st February, 2012 at premises no.455, Civil Lines, Moradabad. Petitioner no.1 is the father of petitioner nos.2 and 3. Petitioner nos.4, 5 and 6 are wives of petitioner nos.1, 2 and 3. Petitioner no.7 is the son of petitioner no.2 and petitioner no.8 is the wife of petitioner no.7. On the basis of the search conducted on 1st February, 2012 and the materials seized, the respondent issued a letter to the banks on the basis of which the bank accounts and lockers were seized/attached on 2nd February, 2012 based upon consequential warrant of authorisation under Section 132 of the Act dated 1st February, 2012 issued by the Additional Director. It is alleged that the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he premises of the persons mentioned in the warrant of authorization. It was urged that based on this illegal search, the petitioners' bank accounts and lockers were seized or attached illegally which action was also liable to be quashed by the Court as no search warrant was served by the respondents relating to lockers of the petitioners. It was urged that there was no material or information on the basis of which the lockers of the petitioners were seized and, therefore, the action of the respondents was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on Jagmohan Mahajan and another Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab and others, 103 ITR 579, Manmohan Krishan Mahajan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala and others, 107 ITR 420, Ajit Jain Vs. Union of India and others, 242 ITR 302, Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rohini Walia, 289 ITR 328, Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ram Singh, 351 ITR 391 and Smt. Kavita Agarwal and another Vs. Director of Income Tax (Investigation) and others, 264 ITR 472. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel for the department, Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal justified the actio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... objectives, namely, to get hold of evidence bearing on the tax liability of a person which the said person is seeking to withhold from the assessing authority and to get hold of assets representing income believed to be undisclosed income and applying so much of them as may be necessary in discharge of the existing and anticipated tax liability of the person concerned. Section 132 of the Act envisages to unearth the hidden or undisclosed income or property and bring it to assessment. However, a search which is conducted under Section 132 of the Act is a serious invasion into the privacy of a citizen. Section 132(1) of the Act has to be strictly construed and the formation of the opinion or reason to believe by the Authorising Officer must be apparent from the note recorded by him. The opinion so recorded must clearly show whether the belief falls under clause (a), (b) or (c) of Section 132(1) of the Act. No search can be ordered except for any of the reasons contained in clause (a), (b) or (c). The satisfaction note should itself show the application of mind and the formation of the opinion by the officer ordering the search. If the reasons, which are recorded, do not fall under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 132 of the Act. Only where the petitioner furnishes adequate and cogent material in support of his denial of a valid information that the court can justifiably call upon the department to disclose the information. We may make it clear that the disclosure of the material or information to the persons against whom action under Section 132 of the Act is taken is not mandatory because in our opinion the very disclosure would affect or hamper the investigation. The person against whom the action is to be taken would be supplied all the relevant facts and materials on which further action is proposed after investigation is completed. The stage of disclosure consequently is given only when the authority resolves to make an appropriate order to impose tax liability or penalty, etc. and, at that stage, relevant material would be disclosed. The words "has reasons to believe" as provided in Section 132(1) of the Act postulates a belief and existence of reasons for that belief. The belief must be held in good faith: it cannot be a mere pretence. Such belief should not be based on mere suspicion but must be based on information which is in the possession of the authorising authority. The f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of authorisation issued in the name of the aforesaid persons were not the residents of the premises in question. Some of them were co owners. Consequently, we are of the opinion that the petitioners' cannot question the validity or legality of the issuance of the warrant of authorisation in the name of Gurdeep Singh Chaddha (Ponty) and others, on the basis of which, search and seizure operations was conducted at the premises no.455, Civil Lines, Moradabad. We are also of the opinion that the petitioners' cannot allege that there was no "information" or "reasons to believe" warranting the issuance of the warrant of authorisation under Section 132 of the Act since the petitioners' name was not mentioned in the warrant of authorisation. Only the persons mentioned in the warrant of authorisation can allege that the action taken under Section 132 was wholly illegal based on no information and having no reasons to believe or that no satisfaction was recorded on the file. Since the persons mentioned in the warrant of authorisation are not before this Court, it is not necessary for us to go into the question whether there was sufficiency of material or existence of informati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the person with respect to whom search was made under Section 132 or whose books of account or other documents or any assets were requisitioned under section 132A, then, the books of account, other documents or assets seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person and that Assessing Officer shall proceed against such other person and the provision of this Chapter shall apply accordingly." From the aforesaid it is clear that the jurisdiction to assess the undisclosed income, if any, of the petitioners' on the basis of the search vests in the assessing officer by virtue of the provisions of Section 158BA of the Act in case where a search under Section 132 of the Act is initiated. Such assessment is to be carried out in respect of undisclosed income of a person, who was not issued a warrant of authorisation by invoking the provisions of Section 158BD. We are of the opinion that even though no warrant of authorisation was issued against the petitioners' under Section 132 of the Act, nonetheless, the search conducted against them was wholly valid for the reasons stated aforesaid. Pursuant to the search conducte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
