JANAK RAJ SHARMA Vs. DIRECTOR OF INSPECTION INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IS the search of the petitioner's premises vitiated on the ground that the competent authority had no information or material as contemplated under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? This is the primary question that arises for decision in this case. A few facts may be briefly noticed.

(2.) THE petitioner is an assessee under the Income-tax Act since the year 1961. He was running a sole proprietary concern under the name and style of Jadco Industries for the manufacture and sale of auto parts. He has his residence within the factory premises. In the year 1986, the petitioner inducted his son, Mr. Tarun Sharma, as a partner. Jadco Industries had, thus, become a partnership concern.

(3.) A written statement on behalf of respondent No. 1 has been filed by Mr. K. Rangarajan. He states that the warrant of authorisation for search had been issued on the basis of "the information available to him on record". He maintains that while authorising the search against the petitioner, he had satisfied himself with the conditions precedent for issuance of search warrant under Section 132 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. . . " It has been further averred that "shri R. R. Thakur, Income-tax Officer, Survey Circle, Jalandhar, was duly authorised to issue summons under Section 131 of the Act as he was competent authority under orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar, vide orders dated May 25, 1987". Written statements filed by respondents Nos. 4 and 6 are of a formal nature.