Shah E Naaz Judge vs Additional Director Of Income Tax ... on 30 November, 2018
In Lajpat Rai v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1995) 215 ITR 608
(All), locker key was found in residence of petitioner no. 1 therein during
search and seizure operation. Request for issue of consequential warrant of
authorization for search of locker was made 25 days after the earlier search.
The Court observed that the authorities had sufficient opportunity to peruse
the material already seized from the residential premises and inspite of time
W.P. (C) No. 5937/2016+connected matters Pag e 23 of 36
and opportunity, the report did not contain any material or reason to justify
search of the locker. Consequently, the authorization was based on
irrelevant consideration and was quashed. This verdict highlights need to
protect citizens from unnecessary and unsubstantiated assertion resulting in
breach and violation of right to privacy. Search is not valid when there was
no material and evidence to justify intrusion and interference. In the present
case also, there was time gap between the date of search on 10th June, 2014,
i.e., the date of the seizure of locker key, and the date of authorization i.e.
27th June, 2014. The respondent authorities, therefore, had sufficient time to
ascertain and verify facts and form an informed and considered opinion. We
have also quoted the questions put and answers given by Karmajit Singh
Jaiswal on 10th June, 2014 on the locker key. Satisfaction note does not state
that any attempt was made to verify and ascertain facts post discovery of the
locker key. The note had not indicated that the statement on oath by
Karamjit Singh Jaiswal was incorrect and false. On the other hand, assertion
of Karamjit Singh Jaiswal that the locker key belonged to his cousins was
found to be correct. On 10th June, 2014 and even subsequently Karamjit
Singh Jaiswal was not questioned that the locker belongs to him or stores
assets belonging to him. No attempt was made to verify and question Shah-
E-Naaz Judge on these aspects. As stated above, the last paragraph of the
satisfaction note, without adverting to any fact and evidence records that the
author‟s opinion that the locker "may" contain valuables such as cash,
jewellery, FDRs and other important documents etc. This would not meet
the statutory requirement on formation of opinion with reference to
information and material.