B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, petitioner No. 1 – A Company under Companies Act, 1956, and petitioner Nos. 2 & 3, who are its Directors, have prayed for quashing of the warrant of authorization for conducting search, issued under Section 132 of Income-Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and consequential action thereafter in issuing notices under Section 153A of the Act, thereafter for the assessment years 2004-05 to 2009-10. The search operations have been carried out from 19th June 2009 to 21st July 2009. The matter was directed to be listed for final hearing by orders of this Court dated 22nd July 2011, in the week commencing from 22nd August 2011. The short contention is about absence of any material, warranting such search action.

2. Accordingly, we have heard Shri Thakkar with Shri Bhattad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Parchure, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. Shri Thakkar, learned counsel has urged that the petitioners are regular in paying income-tax, in filing return and have produced books of accounts and supplied all information as and when demanded. In this situation, there was no reason or occasion to proceed under Section 132 of the Act against them. He has contended that the only purpose of search was to fish out some material to find out why petitioner No. 1 – Company has registered phenomenal growth over short period. The purpose is collateral and hence action of search on its basis is unsustainable. He states that the benefit under Section 80IA has been properly claimed and allowed and it appears that purpose was to withdraw it anyhow. Even in relation to Keyman Insurance Policies, he explains that the material is on record and policies have been transferred by Company to such Keyman and necessary facts are all within the knowledge of the department. He has urged that therefore, real purpose behind this roving exercise was to deny Section 80IB benefit to the petitioners. He has invited attention to pleadings which have come on record in this respect to argue how there is nothing on record to show any new information in possession of the respondents necessitating such action. Attention is invited to the directions dated 17.09.2010 by this Court pointing out that the same were oral but department was directed to produce the material on the basis of which satisfaction under Section 132(1) was recorded by the competent authority. He contends that the satisfaction as recorded is justiciable and, therefore, the petitioners needed to be given an opportunity to go through that file. But according to him, the affidavits filed by the respondents on the strength of material contained in that file do not show that ingredients of Section 132(1) are satisfied. He has also invited our attention to additional affidavits and rejoinders filed by both sides thereafter from time to time. The judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of Smt. Uma Devi Jhawar vs. Income Tax Officer, reported at (1996) 218 ITR 573(Cal.) is relied upon to show the entitlement of the petitioners to inspect said file.

4. The judgments reported in the case of Income Tax Officer & Ors. vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das, reported at (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC), L.R. GUPTA & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., reported at (1992) 194 ITR 32 (Delhi), Vindhya Metal Corporation & Ors. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., reported at (1985) 156 ITR 233 (All.), Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Vindhya Metal Corporation & Ors., reported at (1997) 224 ITR 614 (SC) and the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in CartiniIndia Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., reported at (2009) 314 ITR 275, are pressed into service by him to show how judicial review of that satisfaction is open. According to him, if this law is applied, the search operations and consequential steps under Section 153A of the Act are entirely without jurisdiction.

5. Shri Parchur