Case Details

Citation(s)
2003 SLG 3140 2003 SLD 3140 (2003) 264 ITR 87
Gujarat High Court
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8437 AND 8438 OF 2002 DECEMBER 18, 2002
A.R. DAVE AND D.A.MEHTA, 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

Farshubhai Prabhurambhai Kakkad

v.

Director of IncomE tax

Law:

Section:

Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - General - Whether, where necessary orders to have survey of business premises of firm 'J' of which petitioners were partners had already been passed, there was no justifiable reason for having a search at residences of petitioners - Held, yes FACTS During the course of search in case of members of 'A' Group under section 132, the premises of one 'P' had been searched by the respondent- authorities and certain sum was found which according to 'P' belonged to his firm 'J' of which he was a partner after disassociating himself from the 'A' Group. The respondent No. 1 was informed about the same and upon recording the facts, he directed issuance of authorisation under the provisions of section 132. The Additional Director (Investigation) issued authorization in favour of respondent No. 2 for carrying out search at the residence of the petitioner-partners. The petitioners in the instant petitions challenged the validity of the said authorisation on the grounds that satisfaction as required under the provisions of section 132 had not been recorded by respondent No. 1 before issuance of authorization to respondent No. 2 and that there was no justifiable reason for having a search at the residential premises of the petitioners since necessary orders to have survey under the provisions of section 133A had already been passed by the respondent-authorities. Further, the decision to have search had been taken without any application of mind and without fulfilling the conditions incorporated in section 132. HELD When the decision with regard to having search in case of members of 'A' Group under section 132 had been taken, the respondent-authorities had also come to know that 'J' had certain dealings with some of the business units of 'A' Group. So as to have more particulars and details, it was decided to have survey under the provisions of section 133A at the premises owned by the partners of 'J'. Necessary orders for survey had already been passed at the time when search had taken place under section 132 at the residence of 'P'.[Para 5] Therefore, there was no justifiable reason for having a search at 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