I S TOMAR Vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings under S. 132(1) of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act').

(2.) THE facts are that a search was carried out at the petitioner's residence on 22nd Sept., 1992 and then some assets were seized. Thereafter, an order under S. 132(5) was passed on 18th Jan., 1993. Aggrieved, the petitioner made an application under sub-s. (11) of S. 132 before the CIT, which is said to be still pending.

(3.) THE learned standing counsel produced records before us pertaining to authorisation which we have gone thoroughly carefully. In the course of arguments, the learned counsel for petitioner revealed certain important facts that assessment for the asst. yrs. 1992-93 and 1993-94 have been made subsequent to the date of search and seizure having treated the seized assets as undisclosed.