HARIHAR SHAH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned standing counsel, IT Department.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, may be noted at the outset : a search and seizure operation was conducted in the premises of one Dolphine Service, a courier agency doing business evidence of two fixed deposit certificates issued by the then ANZ Grindlays Bank for Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 25,000, respectively, renewed upto date, were found. The said fixed deposit certificates were issued in the name of the petitioner, who had shown his address in the care of one Subodh Misra of M/s Dolphine Service. On the basis of the said facts a consequential warrant of authorisation under s. 132(1A) was issued for search of the premises of the bank and the Department whereafter the money was deposited in the account of the CIT, in accordance with the provisions of r. 112 of the IT Rules. Aggrieved by the said action, the instant writ petition has been filed seeking appropriate intervention of the Court.

(3.) The argument raised on behalf of the contesting parties having centred around the correct procedure to be adopted by the officers of the Department under the provisions contained in s. 132 of the Act, it would be necessary for this Court, even though it may be briefly, to notice what is enjoined by the aforesaid s. 132 of the Act.