Ajay Kumar Singh v. DGI(Inv.) (2021) 434 ITR 352 / 320 CTR 858 / 277 Taxman 633 (Pat.)(HC)

S. 132 : Search and seizure-Warrant of Authorisation-Search proceedings against company-Application of mind-Warrant of Authorisation is held to be valid. [Art. 226]

Dismissing the petition the Court held that the satisfactions note was clearly concerned with tax evasion activities conducted by the various companies and persons mentioned therein and it had been relied upon by the authority to initiated the proceedings under section 132. The petitioner’s assertion of having resigned from the company and having nothing to do with it, could not be accepted as a disputed fact in writ jurisdiction, more so when the records of the Registrar of Companies reflected the position to be otherwise. In any event, whether or not the petitioner was connected with the company ; or whether or not the documents reflecting huge amounts of cash transactions stood reflected in the books of account and did not represent undisclosed income was again a question of fact which could be easily taken before the authorities in the adjudicatory proceedings. The action was neither mala fide nor arbitrary or capricious. The note of satisfaction did record reasons calling for necessary authorisation to carry out search and seizure operation. The search and seizure operations carried out by and in terms of section 132 were valid.