D.S. Tewatia, J. - (1.) The petitioners in Civil Writs Nos. 4392 to 4397, 4465, 4467, 4469, 4562 and 4564 of 1975, whose residential and business premises were simultaneously searched by the I.T. authorities on May 29, 1975, in pursuance of the warrants of authorisation issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax (hereinafter referred to as " the Commissioner ") under Sec. 132(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act"), have in these writ petitions assailed the legality of the said searches and the issuance of the notice under Rule 112A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as " the Rules "), requiring some of them, from whose premises seizure of undisclosed income had been effected, to disclose the sources of acquisition of such of the items of undisclosed income, as had been merely listed and not seized by the I.T. authorities that carried out the searches of their respective premises. Since in all of these petitions common questions of law and facts are involved, I propose a common order for the same, and wherever found necessary the reference to facts would be made from Civil Writ Petition No. 4395 of 1975.
(2.) The submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners by Mr. Kuldip Singh, their learned counsel, are : (1) that the searches carried out by the I.T. authorities were illegal for the reason that the order under Sec. 132(1) of the Act had been passed by the Commissioner (respondent No. 1) mechanically, without application of his mind, as would be clear from the order itself, for he had not given any reason for his satisfaction envisaged in the said provision ; (2) that such of the petitioners, to whom notice under Rule 112A of the Rules had been issued, could not have been required by respondent No. 4, the ITO, to disclose the source of the acquisition of such items of the undisclosed income as had been merely listed by the searching authorities at the time of carrying out of the searches of their respective premises. According to the learned counsel, provisions of Rule 112A of the Rules limit the query in -this regard to such items of the undisclosed income only as had been seized during the search; and (3) that there is no jurisdiction with the I.T. authorities to require the petitioners to disclose the sources of acquisition of such items as had been disclosed earlier by them in their wealth -tax returns, because such items cannot be considered to be falling within the category of items of undisclosed income.
(3.) The aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel have to be considered against the background of the assertions made on behalf of the revenue in their replies and the record made available to the court.;