K.C.AGRAWAL, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the authorisation issued by the Commissioner under Section 132A of the I.T. Act, 1961 (briefly stated as 'the Act') read with Rule 112D of the I.T. Rules, 1962 (briefly stated as 'the Rules') and for a writ of mandamus directing the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur, as well as the Treasury Officer, Ghazipur, not to deliver the disputed articles to the ITO, Jaunpur, and to return the same to the petitioner.
(2.) ON October 9, 1974, the premises of Sudarshan, petitioner No. 2, and Chandrika, both sons of Hardeo and Triloki, s/o Tekmau, were searched by the police authorities on suspicion that they were in possession of stolen ornaments and cash. As a result of the search the following valuable articles and cash were recovered from their respective possession : Sudarshan,son of Hardeo Silver Ornaments 96Kilogram 500 grams Gold Ornaments 858 grams - - - - Chandrika,son of Harden Silver Ornaments 84Kilogram 700 grams Gold Ornaments 2Kilogram 450 grams Triloki,son of Tekman Silver Ornaments 64Kilogram 100 grams Gold Ornaments 7Kilogram 39 grams Cash Rs. 47,350 (returnedto Triloki Nath by the court). In pursuance of the search made on October 9, 1974, criminal proceedings were started before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Ghazipur. It, however, appears that during the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the Superintendent of Police, Ghazipur, vide his letter dated November 26, 1975, informed the ITO concerned about the seizure of gold and other valuable articles from the premises ot the petitioner No. 2 and Chandrika and Triloki. In the meantime in in January, 1976, the Chief Judicial Magistrate also wrote a letter to the ITO enquiring if he had any objection to the articles seized by the police being released. If was thereupon that the I. T. Inspector, Jaunpur, appeared before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on January 28, 1976, and asked for an adjournment of the case to enable the Department to proceed in respect of the seized ornaments in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Chief Judicial Magistrate adjourned the case. Thereafter, on February 23, 1976, the ITO, Jaunpur, wrote a letter to the Commissioner giving the full details of the seizure and about the financial status of petitioner No. 2 as well as the firm, M/s. Sudarshan and Company, petitioner No. 1. It was also mentioned in this letter that the silver, gold and other valuable articles had been seized by the police from the premises of Sudarshan, Chandrika and Triloki Nath, and subsequent to the seizure, petitioner No. 2 of the present petition along with others filed before the ITO, Gorakhpur, an application for registration of the firm for the assessment year 1975 -76, on March 30, 1975. This application was accompanied by an instrument of partnership dated October 29, 1974. The firm was alleged to have come into existence with effect from October 1, 1975. The following were shown to be the partners of the said firm : M/s. Sudarsham and Company : (1) Sri Sudarshan, son of Hardeo (2) Jogendra Prasad, son of Sudama
(3.) THE aforesaid two partners also filed their individual returns for the past several assessment years on September 1, 1975, showing the income earned. The details of these returns are as follows : Name of the Firm Name of the partners. Assessment Years. Income returned Income assessed M/s. Sudarshan &Company.; (No return filed by the firm) 1. Sri Sudarshan 70 -71 6000 (6,000 under new scheme). 71 -72 6,000 6,000 ,, ,, 72 -73 6,000 6,000 ,, ,, 2. Jogendra Pd. Verma 68 -69 2,010 . 69 -70;