Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred challenging the legality of search and seizure operations carried out by the Income Tax Authorities under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity) and also challenging the legality and validity of the summons issued by the Income Tax Authorities more particularly by Assistant Director of Income Tax under Sub Section (1A) of Section 131 of the Act, 1961. Moreover, notice issued under Section 153A of the Act, 1961 has also been challenged and it is also prayed that the respondents may be prohibited from proceeding in any manner whatsoever pursuant to the alleged search and seizure in exercise of the powers under Section 132 of the Act, 1961 by the respondents and for release of seized documents.
(2.) COUNSEL appearing for the petitioner submitted that the grossest illegality has been committed by the respondents in carrying out search and seizure under Section 132 of the Act, 1961 and also in issuing summons under Section 131(1A). It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the notice given under Section 131(1A) is subsequent to the search and seizure carried out under Section 132 of the Act, 1961. This is not permissible in the eye of law. Moreover, the satisfaction which ought to be arrived at under Section 131(1A) and under Section 132(1) is not reduced in writing nor looking to the counter affidavit it appears that the respondents had any material on record which has supplied the Income Tax Authorities a reason to believe to carry out search and seizure. In absence of any such material on record, the Income Tax Authorities was not having a reason to believe to give any command to carry out search and seizure and therefore, search and seizure carried out by the respondents from 31st October, 2009 to 4th November, 2009 is absolutely illegal and in contravention of Section 132 of the Act, 1961. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2015) : 370 ITR 180(SC). Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a decision of the Division Bench rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 1417 of 2011 dated 11th January, 2013 in the case of Madhu Gupta v. Director of Income -Tax (Investigation). On the basis of the aforesaid two decisions, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the information available with the Income Tax Authorities must be credible information and there must be nexus between the information and the belief, which is lacking in the present case and hence also, the search and seizure carried out by the respondents may be declared as illegal and all consequent actions of the respondents of issuance of summons under Section 131(1A) and notice issued in exercise of power under Section 153(A) dated 20th June, 2011 also deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(3.) COUNSEL appearing for the respondents vehemently submitted that this petition has been preferred with all ulterior motive. The detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the Additional Director of Income Tax (Investigation) especially in para -19 it has been stated that there was ample material with the respondents authorities that this petitioner was in possession of money, bullion, jewellery and other valuable articles represents either wholly or partly income or property which has not been disclosed for the purpose of Income Tax Act. Moreover, the Assistant Director of Income Tax has to write a satisfaction note alongwith supporting documents proposing an action under Section 132. This note tantamounts reason to believe. Similarly, Joint Director of Income Tax (Investigation)/Additional Director of Income Tax (Investigation) forwards this note to the Director of Income Tax (Investigation). Both these officers arrived at independently about a conclusion for search and seizure to be carried out and thereafter, Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) approves "the reason to believe". Thus, all the aforesaid officers are putting a note and their satisfaction with supporting documents for carrying out search and seizure under Section 132 of the Act. This is a reason to believe. In the facts of the present case also, there is noting of these officers which is approved by the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) that there is a reason to believe for search and seizure to be carried out. This paragraph No. 19 has not been denied in the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner even otherwise also, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that this procedure Income Tax Authorities is following for every search and seizure and therefore, there is no illegality committed by the respondents in carrying out search and seizure of the premises of the petitioner during the period 31st October, 2009 to 4th November, 2009.;