Allowing the petition the Court held that the exercise of power under 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is hedged by certain conditions so as to ensure avoidance of arbitrary and mala fide actions against the assessees. They also balance the demands of the Revenue against the rights and liberties of the assessees including the right to privacy. Therefore, the provisions of section 132 have to be understood and interpreted strictly just as they have to be complied with strictly. In order to initiate any action under section 132, firstly, there has to be information in possession of the officers referred thereunder. Secondly, such officers should have reason to believe as a consequence of such information and based thereon. Thirdly, this information and reason to believe should have a relation with any of the three clause, (a), (b) or (c) contained therein, otherwise such exercise would be bad in law. The search and post-search information or reason to believe cannot form the basis for justifying the warrant of authorisation or the search and seizure conducted under section 132 in pursuance thereof. Information and reason to believe referred to in section 132 have to pre-exist the search operations under section 132. On facts absence of jurisdictional pre-requisites for exercise of power under section 132 Search and seizure illegal Revenue granted liberty to initiate reassessment proceedings in accordance with law. Warrant of authorisation quashed and subsequent search and seizure illegal..  Competent authority not empowered to issue notice under section 131 (1) after initiation of search and seizure under section 132(1) Notice issued after search and seizure unsustainable-Interpretation of taxing statutes Strict interpretation and compliance.  (AY. 2022-23)