The conditions precedent for search and seizure under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must be fulfilled, the authorisation for search must be issued with proper application of mind, and an assessment order passed under Section 132(5) cannot be based solely on the value of the seized assets without considering any explanations from the assessee.

( 1 ) IN this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges the searches at his place of business as well as at his residence and the seizure of certain jewellery, books, papers, documents and money, etc. , and asks for the orders cancelling such searches under Section 132 of the I. T. Act, 1961, and certain other consequential orders.

( 2 ) THE petitioner carries on, according to the petitioner, business since 1957 and states that he had been furnishing his returns regularly and was being assessed to income-tax as such. The petitioner carries on business at No. 6, Karballa Mohammed Street, Calcutta, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-X, being the respondent No. 4, and his subordinate Income-tax Officer, D-Ward, District IV (1), Calcutta, respondent No. 5. The petitioner at all material times and even now resides at No. 6, Dr. Rajendra Road, Calcutta. On the 12th January, 1977, the Director of Inspection, being respondent No. 1, issued a warrant of authorisation under Section 132 (1) of the I. T. Act, 1961, to search the petitioner's residence and office and seize the books, documents, jewellery, cash, etc. I shall have occasion to refer to the authorisation for search, because arguments have been advanced on the said authorisation. On the 14th January, 1977, the Assistant Director of Inspection, being the respondent No. 2, searched the petitioner's residence No. 6, Dr. Rajendra Road, Calcutta, and seized therefrom cash amount, fixed deposit receipts, jewellery and ornaments, including the jewellery and ornaments of the female members of his family, and Godrej lockers. Also the petitioner's office was searched and the books of account, documents and cash were seized on the same date. On the 29th January, 1977, the Assistant Director of Inspection seized two lockers, being lockers Nos. 17-N and 18-N, at Allahabad Bank, Chowringhee branch. These jewelleries, according to the petitioner, belonged to his daughter-in-law and grand-daughter. On the various dates, viz. , on 10th February, 1977, 24th February, 1977, 25th February, 1977, and 5th March, 1977, the petitioner had applied, according to the petitioner, to the ITO, being the ITO, A-Ward, District 1 (2), Calcutta, demanding a copy of the reasons recorded by the Director of Inspection to enable the petitioner to understand whether the conditions precedent to the search and seizure were fulfilled or not. On the 19th March, 1977, respondent No. 3 informed the petitioner that the petitioner was not entitled to know the reasons and on 29th March, 1977, according to the petitioner, the petitioner was advised that respondent No. 3 had no jurisdiction to deal with his case and hear objections. Thereupon on 1st April, 1977, the petitioner received a notice under Rule 112a (1) of the I. T. Rules, 1962, from the ITO, D-Ward, District IV (2), Calcutta, being respondent No. 4, within whose jurisdiction the petitioner carried on his business. But the petitioner alleges that such notice was out of time. On the 13th April, 1977, respondent No. 5 made a summary assessment under Section 132 (5) treating the value of all the assets seized as concealed income of the petitioner and computed the purported total income of Rs. 5,82,144 and treated the same as assessable for the financial year 1976-77, and levied tax and penalty thereon of Rs. 7,06,458. I will have occasion to refer to the said order later. On the 16th May, 1977, the petitioner filed various objections before the Commissioner, respondent No. 4, demanding, inter alia, a copy of the reasons recorded by the Director of Inspection. On the 7th April, 1977, the petitioner states, the petitioner having come to know that the Central Board had transferred the case to the ITO, Central Circle-XXIII, the petitioner demanded a copy of the said order. On the 14th October, 1977, the petitioner received a copy of the order of