Case Details

Citation(s)
2003 SLG 3557 2003 SLD 3557 (2003) 260 ITR 249
Allahabad High Court

M. KATJU AND PRAKASH KRISHNA, JJ.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Dr. Sushil Rastogi

v.

Director of Investigation, IT Deptt.

Law:

Section:

Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - General - Assessment year 1998-99 - Petitioner, a leading dental surgeon, was honest taxpayer - Department conducted search at his premises and seized cash and jewellery - Petitioner contended that entire search was illegal since none of conditions existed under section 132 to warrant such an action and that money and jewellery found at time of search were duly explained - Whether, in absence of any material, mere rumour could not constitute information leading to search and seizure operations - Held, yes - Whether where petitioner, admittedly, had a huge practice in his dental profession and had huge income, as disclosed by him, cash and articles seized could not be such which could not be due to his income from his profession, and which would not have been disclosed - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, entire search and seizure operations were illegal - Held, yes Circulars and notifications - CBDT Instruction No. 1916, dated 11-5-1994 FACTS Petitioner, a leading dental surgeon, was filing its income-tax returns regularly. For the financial year 2000-2001, the gross receipts were of Rs. 45,37,139 and the income before depreciation was Rs. 10,46,372. His brother, father, mother, wife and brother's wife were all income-tax payers. During the course of search and seizure, at their premises on 23-11-2001, cash and jewellery were found and bank lockers were seized. On writ petition for declaring the entire search as illegal with a mala fide attempt to harass, and for releasing cash, jewellery, etc., it was contended that none of the conditions mentioned in section 132(1) existed which warranted any action under said section; that no recorded reasons had been communicated to the petitioner; that money, jewellery, etc., seized in search operation were duly explained to the officers conducting the search but the department did not verify the same; that jewellery found was much less than the limit which could be seized by the department as per the Instruction No. 1916, dated 11-5-1994; that before the search started the petitioner disclosed that cash was kept at two places, one in his bed room which was the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492