- (1.) We have heard Sri S.D. Singh learned senior counsel along with Sri Akhilesh Kumar Pandey for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Kumar along with Sri Shubham Agarwal learned counsel for the Income Tax Department.
(2.) The first two writ petitions being Writ Tax No.179 of 2012 and Writ Tax No.180 of 2012 have been filed by the assessees challenging the search and seizure operation conducted by the Income Tax Authorities on 23rd and 24th December, 2011 at the premises, namely, D.S. (India), Jewelmart Pvt. Ltd. 2 Kamta Vihar Colony, Masani Road, Mathura and residential premises, under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), while the third writ petition being Writ Tax No.181 of 2012 has been filed by the counsel of the petitioners of the aforesaid two writ petitions.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a survey was conducted on 23.12.2011 at the aforesaid premises of M/s D.S. (India) Jewelmart Pvt. Ltd., which was converted into search. The search was conducted on 23rd and 24th December, 2011. The search so conducted was wholly unauthorised and illegal in the absence of any proper authorisation and foundational requirement of any information in possession of the authorities which may lead to reason to believe that the petitioners were in possession of any money, bullion or jewellery or other valuable articles which represent undisclosed income. He further submits that the search was nothing but a counter blast to the complaint lodged by the petitioners on 12.10.2011 before the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur by Fax message and also through speed post, as mentioned in paragraph nos. 10,11, and 12 of the first two writ petitions and an application under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners against Sri M.K. Srivastava, Additional CIT Range-3, Mathura and two other officers of the Income Tax Department in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura. He further submits that the search was conducted at Mathura, while the authorization of such search and seizure was issued by the income tax authority at Kanpur, on 23.12.2011 without looking into any material for recording his satisfaction for grant of authorisation. He further submits that the search was also conducted in the office of the petitioners of the first two writ petitions without existence of any circumstances or material for the search under Section 132 of the Act. The said search was conducted with malafide intention to harass the petitioners and the advocate in which large number of files of the counsel relating to his other clients were taken away by the respondent authorities.;