The CIT is authorized to issue search and seizure warrants under Section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, based on information gathered during the search of premises of the petitioner's sons, and the seizure of assets claimed by the petitioner is legal if the search of the premises was valid and authorized.

D.S.Tewatia, J.

1. Smt. Sita Devi, petitioner herein, has sought for the quashing of search and seizure proceedings conducted by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 under the orders of respondent No. 1 at her residence, by declaring the search warrant issued under Section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 196-1 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), as being a nullity and the search and seizure of assets effected in pursuance thereof as illegal. The petitioner has also prayed that proceedings initiated under Section 132(5) of the Act read with Rule 112A of the I.T. Rules, 1962, be declared as illegal and a mandamus be issued to the respondents to return the seized property to her.

2. The facts that are not in dispute can be stated thus. The petitioner is the mother of Kewal Krishan and Narain Dutt Dhablania who resided along with her in one residential premises. Respondent No. 1, the CIT, Patiala, on being allegedly satisfied in terms of Section 132(1) of the Act issued search and seizure warrants authorising respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to effect the search of the aforesaid two sons of the. petitioner and the premises mentioned in the search warrants being used by them as their residential house. During the course of search in pursuance of the said warrants and after, the aforesaid two sons of the petitioner as also the petitioner had stated that no jewellery was kept buried. The raiding party discovered hidden jewellery after carrying out digging operations at two places in one of the rooms said to have been exclusively occupied by the petitioner. The petitioner claimed the jewellery, etc., so dug out and discovered as exclusively belonging to her. That happened on the morning of 17th of August, 1975, the search having begun on the morning of 16th August, 1975.

3. As a result of her aforesaid claim, the jewellery which was dug out and claimed by her was seized in her hands and the jewellery that was recovered from the safe and claimed by her was left with her after making an inventory thereof. After the search in question was over, respondent No. 4, the ITO, issued notice for the purpose of initiating proceedings under Section 132(5) of the Act. On behalf of the respondents, it has been pleaded in their return that the search party conveyed the information to respondent No. 1 that the house in which the two Dhablania brothers aforesaid lived, stood in the name of their mother, Smt. Sita Devi, and most of the jewellery discovered during the search, more particularly the items which were discovered after carrying out digging operations, were claimed by the mother of Dhablania brothers; that other items were also discoverved which showed that she was carrying on some business of lending and that she had not been either an income-tax or a wealth-tax assessee. On this information, respondent No. 1 being satisfied that authorisation under Section 132(1)(b) and (c) the Act was necessary to be issued against the petitioner, on 17th August, 1975, in the afternoon, search and seizure warrants in her name also were issued to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and the discovered items of jewellery and documents were seized in her hands.

4. On behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Kuldip Singh, the learned counsel, has advanced two contentions : (i) that there was no information with the CIT, respondent No. 1, from which he could be satisfied that action under Section 132(1) of the Act was necessary against the petitioner ; and (ii) that the assets that had been seized in the hands of the petitioner had already been searched out before the search and seizure warrants in her name authorising respondents Nos. 2 and 3 had been issued and since, in pursuance of the said search and seizure warrants, no search was carried out and no discovery effected, therefore, the assets discovered prior thereto could not be discovered and seized in the hands of the petitioner in pursuance of such belated search and seizure warrants against her.

5. On behalf of the respondents, so far