BRIJ MOHAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above four writ petitions have come before us in connection with disposal of two applications in each case, one moved by the petitioner under order 6, Rule 17, of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking amendment of the writ petition and another on behalf of the Commissioner of Income-tax, hereinafter referred to as the C.I.T., under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, for dismissing all the four writ petitions as having become infructuous.

(2.) EXCEPTING that the articles recovered from each of the petitioners are different, the facts leading to all the four writ petitions and prayers made therein are substantially similar. In each of the petitions it has been prayed that search and seizure of the goods undertaken by the officers of income-tax department were not under any warrant of authorisation under Rule 112 of the Income-tax Rules and, therefore, the entire seizure of the goods from the petitioner was without the authority of law. It was further prayed that a declaration be issued to the effect that Section 132 of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), did not authorise the personal search of any person or seizure of any property in the hands or in the pocket of such person. It was also prayed that a declaration be issued that Rule 112 of the Income-tax Rules does not authorise any Income-tax Officer to make search of the person and seize goods from him unless a search warrant was issued against him or unless he was an agent of the person guilty of tax evasion. It was further prayed that search and seizure of the goods and all the proceedings taken by the respondents on the 1st August, 1972, be quashed. The petitioner also prayed for a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from taking further proceedings or to make any assessment under Section 132(5) of the Act. Lastly, it was prayed that the respondents be directed to return the goods seized from the petitioner on August 1, 1972. The above mentioned prayers were made mainly on the grounds: (i) that the search warrants authorised the respondents to make search of the business premises of Messrs. Shri Narain Ganesh Narain and to seize the valuable articles which represented wholly or partly the income or property which remained undisclosed by the said firm for the purposes of the Act; (ii) that the respondents were not authorised to make a search of the petitioner and much less to seize the goods from him ; (iii) that the provisions of Section 132 could not be applied to the case of the petitioner; (iv) that the petitioner was prepared to get the verification of the articles seized, from him but no opportunity was given to him for that purpose; (v) that the respondent-Income-tax Officer is going to estimate the undisclosed income of the petitioner in a summary manner to the best of his judgment on the basis of the goods seized from the petitioner and to get the entire amount of the property for the purposes of satisfying the alleged tax liability.

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties on the amendment application. WE shall deal with the amendment application under each category.