Download eBook on Survey, Search & Seizure under ... - TaxGuru

Survey, Search & Seizure | 33 |Gems of judiciary1. CIT vs. Smt. Chitra devi Soni [2008] 170 Taxmann 164 (Raj.) also seeL.R. Gupta vs. union of India [1992] 194 ITR 32 (del), SLP dismissedFor valid search, any of the situation as enumerated above shouldpersist other wise the entire action could vitate.2. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. K. Katyal [2009] 308 ITR0168 (del). Normally, a search must be continuous. If it cannot becontinuous for some plausible reason, the hiatus in the search mustbe explained. If no cogent or plausible reason is shown for the hiatusin the search, the second or resumed search would be illegal. Merelymentioning in the panchnama that a search has been temporarilysuspended does not ipso facto continue the search. It would have tobe seen as a fact as to whether the search continued or had concluded.Merely because a panchnama is drawn up on a particular date, it doesnot mean that a search was conducted and/or concluded on that date.The panchnama must be a record of a search or seizure for it to qualifyas the panchnama.b. Reason to believe.Search invades the privacy of a citizen. Thus, reason to believe by theauthorizing officer must be apparent from the records of the case. Theopinion or the belief so recorded should clearly demonstrate that the casefalls with in any one or more clauses contained in clauses (a), (b) and (c)of sub section (1) of section 132. therefore, a search or seizure cannot besustained unless it is clearly shown that it was carried out by authorityduly authorized, and all the conditions precedent in relation there toexisted.“Reason to suspect” that petitioner is having undisclosed assets and thereis likelihood that same would not be disclosed is not equal to “reason tobelieve” that petitioner is in possession of undisclosed assets and intendsto evade tax. Therefore, search and seizure carried out on the basis of“reason to suspect” is not valid because “reason to believe” is mandatoryrequirement of law for search and seizure. [Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Dy.Director of Income Tax & Ors. (2003) 260 ITR 67 (Cal).].www.taxguru.in