15. Pawan Kumar Goel vs.
UOI; [2019] 417 ITR 82
(P&H) Date of order: 22nd
May, 2019
Search and seizure –
Survey converted into – Sections 131, 132 and 133A of ITA, 1961 – Scope of
power u/s 132 – Income-tax survey not showing concealment of income –
Proceedings cannot be converted into search u/s 132
In the case of the assessee petitioner, survey operation u/s 133A of the
Income-tax Act, 1961 was carried out which was then converted into search
action u/s 132 of the Act. The assessee filed a writ petition challenging the
validity of the search action with a prayer that the process of search and
seizure be quashed.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the writ petition and held as
under:
‘(i) A search which is conducted
u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is a serious invasion into the privacy of a
citizen. Section 132(1) has to be strictly construed and the formation of the
opinion or reason to believe by the authorising officer must be apparent from
the note recorded by him. The opinion or the belief so recorded must clearly
show whether the belief falls under clause (a), (b) or (c) of section 132(1).
No search can be ordered except for any of the reasons contained in clause (a),
(b) or (c). The satisfaction note should itself show the application of mind
and the formation of the opinion by the officer ordering the search. If the
reasons which are recorded do not fall under clause (a), (b) or (c) then the
authorisation u/s 132(1) will have to be quashed.
(ii) The summons issued to the
assessee was of a survey and as stated by him he voluntarily disclosed the
retention of cash in his premises. In this situation, it was imperative upon
the officials to have recorded their suspicion to initiate further action if
they wanted to convert the survey into seizure. Besides, the summons issued to
the assessee was totally vague. No documents were mentioned which were required
of the assessee, nor was any other thing stated.
(iii) The income-tax authority
violated the procedure completely. Nowhere was any satisfaction recorded either
of non-co-operation of the assessee or a suspicion that income had been
concealed by the assessee warranting recourse to the process of search and
seizure. The proceedings were not valid. The impugned action of the respondents
is quashed.’
