Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (2.97 seconds)
L.R. Gupta And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 4 November, 1991 cites

Balwant Singh And Tohers vs R. D. Shah, Director Of Inspection, ... on 22 March, 1968

(30) Reference was also made to Balwant Singh and others v. R.D. Shah, Director of Inspection, 71 Itr 550. A Division Bench of this Court held that the High Court could not test the adequacy of the grounds leading to the satisfaction which was recorded under Section 132 of the Act. It was, however, observed that the Director of Inspection or the Commissioner ought not to lightly or arbitrarily invade the privacy of a subject. If the grounds on which the belief is founded are non-existent or are irrelevant or are such on which no reasonable person can come to that belief, the exercise of the power would be bad, but short of that, the Court cannot interfere with the belief bona fide arrived at by the Director of Inspection. It is, however, for the Court to examine whether the reasons for the belief have a rational connection or relevant bearing to the formation of the belief. Search warrant. It was further observed, could not be issued merely with a view to making a roving or fishing enquiry, but could be issued only when their existed a good ground for believing that further proceedings may have to be taken.
Delhi High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 24 - Full Document

Income-Tax Officer, Special ... vs M/S. Seth Brothers And Ors on 15 July, 1969

(43) A search which is conducted under Section 132 Is a serious invasion into the privacy of a citizen. Section 132(1) has to be strictly construed and the formation of the opinion or reason to believe by the authorising officer must be apparent from the note recorded by him. The opinion or the belief so recorded must clearly show whether the belief falls under sub-Clause (a), (b) or (e) of Section 13:(l). No search can be ordered except for any of the reasons contained in sub-Clauses (a) (b), or (e). The satisfaction note should itself show the application of mind and the formation of the opinion by the officer ordering the search. If the reasons which are recorded do not fall under Clauses (a), (b) or (e) then an authorisation under Section 132(1) will have to be quashed. As observed by the Supreme Court in Income Tax Officer v. Seth Brothers, 74 Itr 836: "SINCEby the exercise of the power a serious invasion is made upon the rights, privacy and freedom of the tax payer, the power must be exercised strictly in accordance with the law and only for the purposes for which the law authorises it to be exercised. If the action of the officer issuing the authorisation or of the designated officer is challenged, the officer concerned must satisfy the Court about the regularity of his action. If the action is maliciously taken or poer under the Section is exercised for a collateral purpose, it is liable to be struck down by the Court. If the conditions for exercise of the power are not satisfied the proceeding is liable to be quashed".
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 109 - J C Shah - Full Document

V.K. Jain vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 12 August, 1974

(27) In V.K. Jain v. Union of India, 98 Itr 469, a Single Judge of this Court held that for effecting search and seizure under section 132 it was not necessary for the officials of the Income Tax Department to have given to the person, whose account books and documents are sought to be seized, a notice to produce whatever the books or other documents are needed and that person should have failed to comply with such a notice. If the Commissioner of Income Tax was in possession of information that such a person was maintaining duplicate sets of account then such an information was relevant for formation of the necessary belief under Section 132 of the Act. What is, however, important to note is that there must be information about unknown or undisclosed documents.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1