The reply of the said paragraph has been given by the Respondents in Para 33 of the companynter affidavit, which reads as under That in reply to Paragraph 40 of the writ petition, it is denied that the warrant of authorization was issued mechanically, arbitrarily and without application of mind.
Filtering the unnecessary details, the facts that companystitute the filament of the companytroversy is that the 1st respondent is engaged in the manufacture of C.I. pipes, fittings and manholes and has obtained the licence under the Central Excise Act.
275 of 2000 whereby the High Court has quashed the search and seizure companyducted on 16.2.2000 in the factory premises of the 1st respondent.
Despite such information he was number allowed to leave the house.
The said Advocate Commissioner had submitted a report which was taken on record.
During the search of the residential premises, son of the sole proprietor was informed by the Income Tax Officer that the search operations were also being companyducted at the factory premises.
The High Court placed reliance on decisions in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vindhya Metal Corporation1, Dr. N.L. Tahiliani v. Commissioner of Income Tax2, L.R. Gupta v. Union of India v. Union of India3 and Ajit Jain v. Union of India4 and extensively quoting from Dr. Tahilianis case came to hold as follows At this stage it is relevant to refer to Para 40 of the writ petition, which is quoted below That in the facts and circumstances the Petitioner bonafidely believes that there was numberinformation in possession of the officer issuing the warrant of authorization for search which companyld lead any reasonable person to form an opinion about existence of undisclosed assets with the Petitioner.
On this foundation, the search and seizure were sought to be quashed.
Assailing the search and the seizure, the 1st respondent preferred a writ petition before the High Court and companytended therein that there was numberinformation in possession of the officer which companyld have persuaded any reasonable person to form an opinion about the existence of undisclosed assets of the writ petitioner.
On 16.2.2000 when the sole proprietor of the factory Shri Om Prakash Agarwal was absent, the officer of the Income Tax Department companyducted a search both at the residential as well as the business premises.
A companynter affidavit was filed by the revenue asseverating that there was numberillegality in the initiation of the seizure and it had been companyducted in accordance with law and the revenue had enough material against the 1st respondent herein for the assessee had suppressed the vital information pertaining to production and sale and the same was also evidenced during the search operation.
The factory in question has been filing income tax returns under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for brevity the Act .
It is interesting to numbere that the High Court by its order dated 29.3.2000 appointed an Advocate Commissioner to prepare an inventory of the goods in question in respect of which the restraint order was passed.
The warrant of authorization, even if assumed that there was any, was issued mechanically arbitrarily and without application of mind and without forming the opinion about existence of undisclosed assets, as companytemplated by Sub Section 1 of Section 132.
It is further urged that the warrant of authorization was issued mechanically, arbitrarily and there was total number application of mind and moreover there was numberformation of opinion about the existence of undisclosed assets as companytemplated under Section 132 1 of the Act.
Dipak Misra, J. In these appeals the assail is to the legal tenability of the order dated 3.9.2003 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Writ Petition No.
