Tarun Agarwala, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and contends that it has been filing its income tax return regularly. For the financial year 2013 -14, the petitioner declared a turnover of Rs. 62,08,20,868/ -. The present writ petition has been filed praying for the quashing of the search made by the income tax authorities on 28th April, 2015 under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act at premises No. 7/125, C -2, Swarup Nagar, Kanpur and HDFC Bank, Civil Lines, Kanpur with a further prayer to return the records so seized under the search.
(2.) THE petitioner contends that the respondents arrived at their registered office at around 12.00 noon on 28th April, 2015 for the purpose of conducting a survey under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act and during the course of survey seized cash amounting to Rs. 64,56,970/ - and also impounded the books of account in the absence of any Panchas. The petitioner's contended that the respondents deposited the cash in the petitioner's bank account on 28th April, 2015 at 5.00 pm and thereafter, got a demand draft made in their names. It is alleged that initially a survey was conducted under Section 133A of the Act but the same was converted into a search under Section 132 of the Act without there being any warrant or authorisation to search the premises under Section 132 of the Act. It was further alleged that the search started on 28th April, 2015 and concluded on 29th April, 2015 at 7.00 am and that the Panchanama was issued on 29th April, 2015. In the light of the aforesaid factual position, we have heard Sri Shubham Agarwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Kumar, the learned counsel for the income tax department at length. By an earlier order of the Court, the income tax department was directed to produce the original records relating to the recording of the satisfaction for the purpose of conducting a search under Section 132. The said record was produced, which the Court has perused.
(3.) THE contention of the petitioner is, that the action of the respondents in converting the survey under Section 133A of the Act into a search under Section 132 of the Act was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. According to the petitioner, the condition precedent for initiating action under Section 132 of the Act was lacking. The petitioner contended that there was no information in the possession of the authority, which could lead to have a reason to believe that the petitioner was in possession of any money, bullion or jewellery or other articles, which represented undisclosed income. The learned counsel contended that the conditions mentioned in Section 132 of the Act must exist and is a mandatory requirement for a valid search. The learned counsel further submitted that merely because some cash was found would not entitle the authorities to convert the survey into a search operation. The learned counsel submitted that the cash so found, at best, could be utilized in the assessment proceedings but could not become a ground to convert the survey into a search operation. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following decisions, namely, Harbhajan Singh Chadha and others v. Director of Income Tax and others in Writ Tax No. 451 of 2012 decided on 27th March, 2015, Vindhya Metal Corporation and others v. Commissioner of Income Tax and others, : 156 ITR 233, Ganga Prasad Maheshwari and others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, : 139 ITR 1043, Dr. Nand Lal Tahiliani v. Commissioner of Income Tax and others, : 170 ITR 592 and Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), Pune and others v. Spacewood Furnishers Pvt. Ltd. and others, : 2015 ISI B -716 (SC).;