Case: Dir. Gen. Of Inc.Tax(Inv) Pune  Vs. M/S. Spacewood Funishers Pvt. Ltd.

affidavit filed before it were at variance with what was revealed by the satisfaction note(s) placed before the Court. Even if the satisfaction notes alone are to be gone by, the essential details with regard to source of information; the persons who were interrogated and with whom discreet enquiries were made are not disclosed. The necessary information revealed by such interrogation and discreet enquiries with regard to over invoicing, market information etc. are not indicated. Materials like high growth, high profit margins, doubts about international brand and details thereof etc. as mentioned in the satisfaction note(s) are admitted and known facts and therefore could not have induced the requisite belief. The above constitutes the broad basis on which the High Court thought it proper to cause inference with the measures undertaken by the Revenue against the assessee. 21. Before we advert to the specific reasoning of the High Court, one specific aspect of the opinion expressed by the High Court needs to be taken note of inasmuch as the precise position in law in this regard needs to be clarified. The above aspect is highlighted by the following observations of the High Court expressed in paragraph 6 of the impugned order:- “We, however, express that when the satisfaction recorded is justiciable, the documents pertaining to such satisfaction may not be immune and if appropriate prayer is made, the inspection of such documents may be required to be allowed.” 22. In the light of the views expressed by this Court in ITO vs. Seth Brothers (supra) and Pooran Mal (supra), the above opinion expressed by the High Court is plainly incorrect. The necessity of recording of reasons, despite the amendment of Rule 112 (2) with effect from 1st October, 1975, has been repeatedly stressed upon by this Court so as to ensure accountability and responsibility in the decision making process. The necessity of recording of reasons also acts as a cushion in the event of a legal challenge being made to the satisfaction reached. Reasons enable a proper judicial assessment of the decision taken by the Revenue. However, the above, by itself, would not confer in the assessee a right of inspection of the documents or to a communication of the reasons for the belief at the stage of issuing of the authorization. Any such view would be counter productive of the entire exercise contemplated by Section 132 of the Act. It is only at the stage of commencement of the assessment proceedings after completion of the search and seizure, if any, that the requisite material may have to be disclosed to the assessee. 23. At this stage we would like to say that the High Court had committed a serious error in reproducing in great details the contents of the satisfaction note (s) containing the reasons for the satisfaction arrived at by the authorities under the Act. We have already indicated the time and stage at which the reasons recorded may be required to be brought to the notice of the assessee. In the light of the above, we cannot approve of the aforesaid part of the exercise undertaken by the High Court which we will understand to be highly premature; having the potential of conferring an undue advantage to the assessee thereby frustrating the endeavor of the revenue, even if the High Court is eventually not to intervene in favour of the assessee.24. Having clarified the above issue in the manner indicated, we may turn to the reasons assigned by the High Court for its decision. The view expressed by the High Court with regard to the satisfaction note(s); the alleged absence of a final decision to issue the authorization at the level of the Additional Director and the Director; the absence of any satisfaction of the Director General who, according to the High Court took the decision to issue the authorization are all seriously flawed. The different steps in the decision making process is lucidly laid down in the instructions contained in the search and seizure manual published by the department, relevant part of which has been extracted above. The steps delineated have been scrupulously followed. Besides we may take note of the fact that the Additional Director was not one of the competent authorities under Section 132 on 8.6.2009 (date of his note) inasmuch as it is by the Finance Act, 2009 effective from 19th August, 2009 that the Additional Director came to be included amongst the authorized officials though with retrospective effect from 1.10.1998. The reading of the relevant part of the satisfaction note of the Director goes to show that on the basis of materials produced satisfaction was duly recorded by him that authorization for search should be issued. The file was put up before the Director General (Investigation) for accord of administrative approval as required by Notification dated 7.3.2001. In fact, the requirement to obtain administrative approval is prompted by the need to provide an additional safeguard to the tax payer. A careful reading of the order of the Director General would go to show that all that he did was to record the view that the satisfaction of the Director, Income Tax (Investigation) was reasonable and therefore administrative approval should be accorded. The view taken by the High Court, therefore, cannot be sustained.25. The possibility of manipulation of the records as found by the High Court also does not commend to us for acceptance. There is no basis, whatsoever, for coming to any such conclusion. Suspicion ought not to be the basis of any judicial order and this is where the High Court seems to have erred.26. The remaining findings of the High Court with regard to the satisfaction recorded by the authorities appear to be in the nature of an appellate exercise touching upon the sufficiency and adequacy of the reasons and the authenticity and acceptability of the information on which satisfaction had been reached by the authorities. Such an exercise is alien to the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Court's decision (1 = petition accepted / positive for appellant, 0 = rejected / negative): 1

Reasoning from the judgment:
1[ds]13. In the present case the satisfaction note(s) leading to the issuing of the warrant of authorization against thewere placed before the High Court. As it would appear from the impugned order the contents thereof were exhaustively reproduced by the High Court. The said satisfaction note(s) have also been placed before us. A perusal of the file containing the satisfaction note(s) indicate that on 8.6.2009 the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Nagpur had prepared an elaborate note containing several reasons as to why he had considered it reasonable to believe that if summons or notice were issued to the respondent to produce the necessary books of account and documents, the same would not be produced. The Assistant Director also recorded detailed reasons why he entertains reasons to believe that the promoters of thecompany would be found to be in possession of money, bullion, jewellery etc. which represents partly or wholly income which has not been disclosed for the purposes of the Act.The High Court by the impugned order dated 9.12.2011 has taken the view that in the present case there are four satisfaction notes of four different authorities. One of the said authority i.e. Assistant Director is not the competent authority under Section 132 of the Act. The Additional Director and the Director who are competent authorities to issue the warrant of authorization, though had recorded their satisfaction, have not taken the final decision to issue the authorization and each such authority had passed on the file to his immediate superior, namely, the Additional Director to the Director and the Director to the Director General. The High Court further held that it is eventually the Director General who took the decision to issue the search warrant but the said decision was not on the basis of its own satisfaction but on the basis of the satisfaction recorded by the Director of Income Tax (Investigation). Consequently, the High Court held that the satisfaction mandated by Section 132 of the Act was not that of the authority who has issued the search warrant, thereby vitiating the authorization issued.19. The High Court further held that each of the satisfaction notes was in loose sheets of paper and not a part of a single file maintained in proper sequence and order with due pagination. Therefore, according to the High Court, it is possible that the file containing the satisfaction note(s) was manipulated and thus is of doubtful credibility.20. The High Court also held that the materials indicated by the department in the counter affidavit and the additional affidavit filed before it were at variance with what was revealed by the satisfaction note(s) placed before the Court. Even if the satisfaction notes alone are to be gone by, the essential details with regard to source of information; the persons who were interrogated and with whom discreet enquiries were made are not disclosed. The necessary information revealed by such interrogation and discreet enquiries with regard to over invoicing, market information etc. are not indicated. Materials like high growth, high profit margins, doubts about international brand and details thereof etc. as mentioned in the satisfaction note(s) are admitted and known facts and therefore could not have induced the requisite belief. The above constitutes the broad basis on which the High Court thought it proper to cause inference with the measures undertaken by the Revenue against the assessee.assessee.24. Having clarified the above issue in the manner indicated, we may turn to the reasons assigned by the High Court for its decision. The view expressed by the High Court with regard to the satisfaction note(s); the alleged absence of a final decision to issue the authorization at the level of the Additional Director and the Director; the absence of any satisfaction of the Director General who, according to the High Court took the decision to issue the authorization are all seriously flawed. The different steps in the decision making process is lucidly laid down in the instructions contained in the search and seizure manual published by the department, relevant part of which has been extracted above. The steps delineated have been scrupulously followed. Besides we may take note of the fact that the Additional Director was not one of the competent authorities under Section 132 on 8.6.2009 (date of his note) inasmuch as it is by the Finance Act, 2009 effective from 19th August, 2009 that the Additional Director came to be included amongst the authorized officials though with retrospective effect from 1.10.1998. The reading of the relevant part of the satisfaction note of the Director goes to show that on the basis of materials produced satisfaction was duly recorded by him that authorization for search should be issued. The file was put up before the Director General (Investigation) for accord of administrative approval as required by Notification dated 7.3.2001. In fact, the requirement to obtain administrative approval is prompted by the need to provide an additional safeguard to the tax payer. A careful reading of the order of the Director General would go to show that all that he did was to record the view that the satisfaction of the Director, Income Tax (Investigation) was reasonable and therefore administrative approval should be accorded. The view taken by the High Court, therefore, cannot be sustained.25. The possibility of manipulation of the records as found by the High Court also does not commend to us for acceptance. There is no basis, whatsoever, for coming to any such conclusion. Suspicion ought not to be the basis of any judicial order and this is where the High Court seems to have erred.26. The remaining findings of the High Court with regard to the satisfaction recorded by the authorities appear to be in the nature of an appellate exercise touching upon the sufficiency and adequacy of the reasons and the authenticity and acceptability of the information on which satisfaction had been reached by the authorities. Such an exercise is alien to the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.