The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity for reasons to suspect concealed income and the requirement to record suspicion before converting a survey into search and seizure under the provisions of the Income Tax Act.

JUDGMENT :

MAHESH GROVER, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer that the process of search and seizure conducted by the respondents on 06.09.2016 till 08.09.2016 on the business premises/residence of the petitioner be quashed.

2. On 06.09.2016 at about 11.30 a.m. officials of the respondent department entered the business premises of the petitioner situated in SCO No.76, MDC, Sector 5, Panchkula and the petitioner was allegedly asked to sign documents without disclosing their contents. Upon raising a question the respondents supplied him with a copy of summons dated 06.09.2016 under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") informing the petitioner that the officials wanted to carry a survey operation under Section 133-A of the Act. According to the petitioner, during this procedure he voluntarily disclosed the liquidity/cash that he had in the premises to the extent of more than Rs.2 crores. The petitioner also cooperated with the officials of the department in providing them with the books of accounts, keys of lockers and all other necessary support during the survey. The petitioner disclosed that the amount of Rs.2,09,89,090/- was on account of advance that he had received from a reputed hospital in connection with his business. The grievance of the petitioner is that although the summons indicated survey operations but the procedure was converted into search and seizure which is impermissible in law. He further alleges complete violation of the provisions of Section 133 A (3) and (4) of the Act. The petitioner further asserts that he and all his staff members fully cooperated with the respondents and summons under Section 131 of the Act could not be issued and likewise no procedure under Section 133 (1) and (2) could be adopted unless the petitioner did not offer cooperation to attract the action under sub-section (6) of Section 133 A. Further it is stated that there has been a complete non-application of mind in issuing summons under Section 131 of the Act. If the petitioner was non-cooperative, it ought to have been mentioned before taking any further action against the petitioner. Besides, the summons was absolutely silent as to what information was required from the petitioner during the survey operation.

3. The respondents, on the other hand, justify the action taken by them.

4. Annexure P-3 is the summons issued to the petitioner under Section 131 of the Act, which indicates that the premises of the petitioner were converted into a camp office and advised to attend the office and give evidence or produce books of accounts, failing which a penalty of Rs.10,000/- for each default would be imposed upon him. Towards the bottom of the summons it is written "Books of accounts/documents specified". This, according to our mind, is totally vague as the summons is absolutely silent as to what information was required of him during the survey operation. Even in the reply filed to the petition it has not been stated so. Thus, there is complete ambiguity in the language of the summons which failed to apprise the petitioner of what is required of him at the time of attending the office. Be that as it may, there is a specific assertion made by the petitioner that he had cooperated with the respondents voluntarily and disclosed the existence of cash to the tune of Rs.2,09,89,090/- in his safe and the keys were handed over to the officials of the respondents with an explanation of the cash being on account of advance received of a business transaction.

5. We would refer to the specific assertion only for the reason that the respondents have failed to dislodge this aspect. They have merely offered a denial simpliciter and no material has been produced before us or appended to the reply indicating that there was non-cooperation from the petitioner or his employees leading to subsequent course being adopted. Para 5(viii) of the petition reads as under :-

"5(viii) That the Respondents/Survey Team was also affo