K.B.ASTANA, J. - (1.) IN the present case a raid was conducted at the house of the petitioner under S. 132 of the Income-tax, 1961. A large number of valuable, fixed deposit receipts and bank account were seized. Subsequently, an order under S. 132(5) of the Act was passed by the ITO treating the property as belonging to the firm Messrs. Jamuna Prasad Munni Lal. Objection were filed by a number of persons claiming some of the properties seized to be theirs. These objections were not taken note of by the ITO and the order in question was passed without any notice to the objectors. In Civil Misc. writ 781 of 1975 1976 CTR (All). 188 filed by the objectors, we have quashed the order. Inasmuch as the order in question has been passed on the assumption that the property in question belongs to the petitioner, without taking note of the objections filed by third parties, the present order cannot stand as respects the petitioner as any decision on the objection will have a repercussion on the impugned order. The order as such as respects this petitioner cannot also be upheld.
(2.) WE accordingly set aside the impugned order of the ITO, and direct that the matter should be decided afresh after giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate his objection. We further direct the CIT, Lucknow to have the matter tried and decided by another ITO at Deoria other than the one who passed the impugned order, and those who have sworn the counter affidavit in the case. In case no such officer is available at Deoria, he should assign an ITO from outside to hear the case at Deoria. The petitioner is entitled to his costs. The ITO concerned should decide the case within a period of three months from the date of the communication of this order to the CIT, Lucknow. A copy of this order shall be sent to the CIT, Lucknow.;