Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2001 (11) TMI 29

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... entioned in the section exist. The learned single judge has considered all these aspects in detail and has rightly come to the conclusion that there is no irregularity or infirmity in the search warrant - - - - - Dated:- 3-11-2001 - Judge(s) : R. V. RAVEENDRAN., N. K. PATIL. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by R.V. RAVEENDRAN J.-The appellant claims that he is a manufacturer of silver and gold articles carrying on business under the name and style of "Anitha Metal Works" and an assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act", for short). He has maintained a locker bearing No. 139 having taken it on hire from Shaswathi Leasing Private Limited at B.V.K. Iyengar Road, Bangalore. In pursuance of warrant issued un .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... laration that the search of locker bearing No. 139 on March 31, 1997, was invalid and without jurisdiction. He also sought a further declaration that the search warrant dated April 1, 1997, was invalid and non est in law and a direction to the respondents to return all the seized materials and documents and treat the further proceedings emanating therefrom as being non est in law. It is not disputed by the Department that on March 31, 1997, there was no search warrant in regard to the locker No. 139 of the appellant. However, the Revenue contends that while effecting search in pursuance of the warrant issued relating to Shaswathi Leasing Private Limited, the officers came across the locker and on the request of the officers, the petition .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion Bench of this court has held as follows: "What the High Court has to examine in such a case would be whether there was in fact information in the possession of the Commissioner and whether there is a rational connection between the information and the belief entertained by him. As already explained by us, the information itself will have to be of a fairly reliable character--whatever may be the source of it--because, unless the information is of such a character, it cannot furnish a reasonable basis for entertaining the belief that any of the circumstances mentioned in the section exists. Secondly, the information must have a relevant bearing on the formation of the belief and must not be extraneous or irrelevant to the purpose of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eld the search and seizure. It held that section 132(1)(b)(iii) nowhere envisages that a search of the premises has to be from the very inception in pursuance of search and seizure warrants against the person in whose hands the discovered items are seized; and that the provision envisages that the search of the premises has to be a valid and authorised search in that there must be a legal and valid search warrant for searching the premises of the persons who, on information, are believed to reside therein or occupy the same, and it is not necessary that the person against whom the warrant is issued should be in exclusive possession of specified portions. The court further held: "The question that falls for determination is as to whether i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y authorising the search and seizure had reason to believe that the assets which were found in the locker were not disclosed to the Department, there is no reason why action under section 132 could not be initiated. In the circumstances, a satisfaction note was put up on March 31, 1997, giving reasons for the initiation of action under section 132 by issuing a warrant and this was considered and recommended by the Deputy Director of Income-tax (I). The Director of Income-tax (I) after considering the same recorded his satisfaction that it was a fit case for action under section 132 of the Act. It is thus seen that the procedure prescribed under section 132 has been followed and the satisfaction note shows that there was application of mind .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates