9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (10) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D, Chandigarh, along with Shri Mulkh Raj Mahajan, advocate, Chandigarh. The petitioners in Civil Writs Nos. 4894 and 4895 of 1975 are the sons of Shri Mulkh Raj Mahajan and the petitioners in Civil Writs Nos. 968 and 969 of 1975 are the daughters-in-law of Shri Mulkh Raj Mahajan, advocate, Chandigarh. The house of the latter was searched under a warrant of authorisation issued by the Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 119 of 1975 (Jagmohan Mahajan v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1976] 103 ITR 579 (Punj)) decided on August 13, 1975. As a consequence of the search made, some jewellery and cash found from the premises in possession of the various petitioners were taken into possession under a memo prepared in accordance with law. The petitioners have challenged the legality of the search and seizure, inter alia, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar that respondent No. 1, even if it be assumed that he did authorise the initiation of action against the petitioners, acted in the absence of any information on the basis of which statutory belief could be formed. The search of the premises of the petitioners must be declared to be illegal on this ground alone and we order accordingly." It was also held by the Division Bench that issuance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... two important decisions were not considered by the Division Bench in Civil Writ No. 150 of 1975 [H. L. Sibal v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1976] 103 ITR 606 (Punj)]. These cases are Vashist Bhargava v. Income-tax Officer [1975] 99 ITR 148 (Delhi) and Sakarlal Balabhai v. Income-tax Officer [1975] 100 ITR 97 (Guj). In Vashist Bhargava's case [1975] 99 ITR 148 (Delhi) it was held that the Income-ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner's premises was conducted and also bold that since there was no basis for initiating action under section 132(1) of the Act, it was not open to the authorised officer to hold or to continue with any enquiry against the petitioners under section 132(5) of the Act. An order under section 132(5) of the Act, if any, passed by the Income-tax Officer against any of the petitioners shall also st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
