JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.K. Gupta, J.—This writ petition has been filed inter-alia for the following reliefs : “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction and declare that the search conducted against the petitioners on 14-9-2002 as illegal and in contravention of Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI and to quash the consequential block assessment notices dated 29-4-2003 and 21-5-2003 (Annexure-5)” 2. The brief facts as enumerated in the writ petition are as follows : The petitioner No. 1 is a Company duly incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 within the meaning of Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956. Under the objects of the company/petitioner No. 1 as incorporated in its Memorandum of Association, works in the field of Medical Diagnostics by providing facilities of X’Ray, Pathology and Ultrasound images. Dr. H.R. Agarwal, Dr. Sita Ram Agarwal, Dr. K.R. Agarwal and Dr. Mrs. Chitralekha Agarwal are on the Board of Directors of the said Company. The registered office of the company is at 37/17 Westcott Building, The Mall Kanpur. The petitioners No. 3 to 6 work for the said company and derive remuneration from the company for the work done by them. 3. The petitioner No. 2 is a society registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860 and was granted registration on 30-6-1993 having its registered office at 15-257 Civil Lines, Kanpur and has also been granted registration under Section 80-G of the Income Tax Act (in short “The Act”) as well as under Section 12-A of the Act. 4. The competent authority appears to have authorized search against the petitioners under Section 132 of the Act and pursuant to such act of authorization, a search was conducted against each of the petitioners on 14-9-2002. The search was conducted at the registered office of the petitioners No. 1 and 2 and also at the residential and other addresses of the other petitioners including The Doctor’s X’Ray & Pathology Institute (P) Limited, 37/17 Westcott Building, The Mall, Kanpur, 15/257 Civil Lines, Kanpur, 2A/239 Anand Nagar Kanpur, 4/276-R, 4/276-B Parwati Bagla Road, Kanpur. Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Kanpur, respondent No. 3 (in short Deputy Commissioner) issued notices for block assessment to the petitioners for the block period ending 14-9-2002 under Section 158-BC of the Act. Hence the present writ petition. 5. Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Kanpur, respondent No. 3 (in short Deputy Commissioner) issued notices for block assessment to the petitioners for the block period ending 14-9-2002 under Section 158-BC of the Act. Hence the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made the following submissions in support of his contention : (i) The search is without jurisdiction or authority inasmuch as the Director of Investigation, Kanpur (in short Director) issued authorization for search in absence of reasons to believe that the petitioner is in possession of money bullion, valuable article or thing, books of account or other documents either representing or divulging any income which had not been or would not have been disclosed for the purposes of the Act and which may be found at any particular place or premises. Such reason to believe has not been recorded. The authorization has been issued to conduct a fishing and roving enquiry without any base or substance for totally vague consideration. (ii) Their existed no material on record before the competent authority before authorizing the search, on the basis of which a prudent man could ever entertain reason to believe. (iii) The entire search conducted under Section 132 of the Act is illegal and as such notices issued under Section 158-BC are illegal and without jurisdiction and are liable to be quashed. (iv) The power of the Income tax authority regarding discovery, production of evidence etc. is provided under Section 131 of the Act. The power of survey is provided under Section 131-A of the Act and to collect information is provided under Section 131-B. Other than the aforesaid provisions there is no power vested with the Income tax authority to enter the premises or make any inquiry etc. 6. On the other hand Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue has contended that search operation was legally valid and consequently notices under Section 158-BC of the Act was also valid. He has further submitted that there was sufficient material on record and the competent authority had reasons to believe before authorizing for search of the disputed premises. He has further submitted that search and seizure has been made strictly in accordance with statutory provisions and no fault can be found against such search and seizure. He has further submitted that there was sufficient material on record and the competent authority had reasons to believe before authorizing for search of the disputed premises. He has further submitted that search and seizure has been made strictly in accordance with statutory provisions and no fault can be found against such search and seizure. There was sufficient material in possession of the authority, on the basis of which opinion was objectively formed and there were reasons to believe that assets had not been and would not be disclosed. 7. Heard Sri S.D. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the original record produced before us by the Revenue. 8. At this juncture it would be useful to refer to the relevant extract of the Section 132 (1) of the Act, which reads as under : “132. Search and seizure.—(1) Where the Director General or Director or the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner or any such Joint Director or Joint Commissioner, as may be empowered in this behalf by the Board in consequence of information in his possession, has reason to believe that— (a) ....................................... (b) ....................................... (c) any person is in possession of any money bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing and such money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing represents either wholly or partly income or property which has not been or would not be disclosed for the purposes of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922) or this Act (hereinafter in this section referred to as the undisclosed income or property). 9. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that if the officer has reasons to believe that the person is in possession of money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing which has not been and would not be disclosed, he may issue warrant of authorization to the designated officer to search the place, person and seize the documents/amounts. Now the short question for our consideration is as to whether the search in this case has been conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Act or not. 10. Now the short question for our consideration is as to whether the search in this case has been conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Act or not. 10. By order dated19-8-2008 this Court had directed the learned Standing Counsel for the department to produce the record relating to search operation carried on the business premises of the petitioner and in pursuance of the same relevant record relating to search operation carried on the business premises has been placed before us which inter alia indicates as follows : “Information has been received that K.R. Agarwal and Dr. Chitra Agarwal along with Dr. H.R. Agarwal and Dr. S.R. Agarwal are evading huge amount of taxes by way of suppressing the income they are earning from their business centre the Doctor’s X’Ray and Pathology Institute (P) Limited and also from their personal practice. It is alleged that the main person of the group is Dr. K.R. Agarwal. In the Pathology Centre when a patient approaches for test of T3, T4 T145 he has to pay Rs. 700/- as fees but the patient is asked to pay the fee directly to the doctor. The doctor gives plain chit in the form of receipt to patient on which the name of doctor is written to whom he has to report on the date of the report the patient collects his report by showing the chit which is taken back. Thus the amount so received is not entered in the books of account. The routine tests payment is received on the counter itself for which proper receipts are issued and entered in the books and the important tests where substantial charges are received are not entered in the books. It has been further alleged that the reports which are not to be recorded are kept in the drawer of Dr. K.R. Agarwal and in an almirah kept under the table of Dr. Chitra Agarwal and also in a small room which is made over the bath room. Dr. K.R. Agarwal and Dr. Chitra Agarwal resides at A/276B Parwati Bagla Road, Kanpur. The residential building has first class construction and the constructed area must be 3000 to 3500 Sq. feet. Dr. S.R. Agarwal and Dr. H.R. Agarwal resides at 15/257 Doodwala Bangla, Civil Lines, Kanpur. Dr. M.R. Agarwal owns four flats in SRI towards Vishnupuri, Kanpur. The flats owned by Dr. Chitra Agarwal resides at A/276B Parwati Bagla Road, Kanpur. The residential building has first class construction and the constructed area must be 3000 to 3500 Sq. feet. Dr. S.R. Agarwal and Dr. H.R. Agarwal resides at 15/257 Doodwala Bangla, Civil Lines, Kanpur. Dr. M.R. Agarwal owns four flats in SRI towards Vishnupuri, Kanpur. The flats owned by Dr. Agarwal are given to him in lieu of the land on which the multi storied building is constructed. The flats are on ground and first floor. Two flats are given on rent and the other two are in possession of Dr. H.R. Agarwal. In the ground floor flat the doctor is running Ultrasound imaging centre where he imparts training to aspirants. The fourth flat at first floor is vacant. Further it has been informed that Dr. K.R. Agarwal solemnised marriage of his daughter in Delhi in which huge sum of money have been spent and also that Dr. K.R. Agarwal and Dr. Chitra Agarwal possesses number of post office account on fictitious names and also possess number of K.V.P. in which substantial amount of unaccounted black money has been invested. I have checked the allegations by visiting the X-ray Lab. and gave my blood for blood sugar testing. Rs. 30/- were charged from me and receipt for the same was given. The observation revealed that the allegations made has ground. During my presence a patient approached the counter and enquired the rates for elisa test, he was asked to report to doctor K.R. Agarwal. After few minutes the patient came out of the doctors chamber having a plain paper receipt and invited the place where the test was to be conducted. Meanwhile I gave my blood and the patient also came out and asked the counter person for proper receipt. He was told that the chit he is holding is sufficient and he need not to have any other receipt. Further enquiry revealed that the elisa test is a costly test for which the fee ranges from Rs. 600/- to Rs. 700/-. The allegation made appears to be correct that the tests where the fee is more are not entered in the books. Further enquiry revealed that the elisa test is a costly test for which the fee ranges from Rs. 600/- to Rs. 700/-. The allegation made appears to be correct that the tests where the fee is more are not entered in the books. Thus on the basis of allegations and enquiries made by me I am of the opinion that the group of doctors running Drs X’ray and Pathology Institution Pvt. Limited are suppressing their actual income, has purchased large number of K.V.P. investing substantial amount and have invested in ultrasound imaging Centre. The daily receipts made by doctors from X’ray lab and practice is not less than Rs. 12,000/- to Rs.15,000/- a day and yearly income of the group can be worked out to Rs. 35 lac to 40 lacs whereas none of the doctor of the group figures in the list of top professionals list wherein the last doctor listed at serial No. 90 has shown yearly income of Rs. 3.11 lacs.Thus the allegation made gains ground that the group of doctors are suppressing their income by a large margin and if at all summons under Section 131 is issued and they are asked to submit the books of account bills vouchers in order to work out their correct income, they will not do so, as such I propose to unearth the true picture of their income and to recover unaccounted money from their possession, an action under Section 132 of the IT Act be approved and if the action proposed is approved search warrants may be issued in the name of persons listed over leaf.” 11. Thus on the basis of the secret information in writing received by ADIT Kanpur and on personal verification made by him by visiting the spot, a detailed note was put by ADIT on 9-9-2002 before JDIT (Investigation) Unit-1, Kanpur. The satisfaction note submitted by ADIT has been examined thoroughly by JDIT (Investigation) Kanpur and was of the opinion that group of doctors are suppressing their income. After submitting the satisfaction report and on the basis of his own observation the JDIT submitted his note before the DIT (Investigation) (Kanpur). The DIT Kanpur after discussing the matter with JDIT took up the matter before the DGIT (Investigation) on 10-9-2002. After submitting the satisfaction report and on the basis of his own observation the JDIT submitted his note before the DIT (Investigation) (Kanpur). The DIT Kanpur after discussing the matter with JDIT took up the matter before the DGIT (Investigation) on 10-9-2002. The DGIT (Investigation) after considering all the facts gave his approval on 11-9-2002 and the DIT (Investigation) issued warrants of authorization under Section 132(1) on 11-9-2002 and in pursuance of the same search was conducted on 14-9-2002. 12. It has been contended in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents inter alia as follows : "(12) that it is incorrect to suggest that not a single document, cash, jewellery was seized by the search party. The fact of the matter is that during the course of search, several incriminating documents were found which showed earning of income outside the books of accounts and these were seized, which contains total of unaccounted income." 13. Thus it is evident from the aforesaid facts that the authorised officer in consequence of the information in his possession had reasons to believe that the petitioners are in possession of money, article or valuable things, books of account or other documents which had not been or would not have been disclosed for the purposes of the Act, he may issue warrant to the designated officer to search and seize the documents/amount. 14. There is no dispute to this proposition that there must be some material in possession of Revenue, on the basis of which objective opinion can be formed that the person concerned has undisclosed money for the purposes of the Act. If the action of the officer issuing the authorisation or of the designated officer is challenged, the officer concerned must satisfy the Court about the legality of his action. If the action is maliciously taken or power under the section is exercised for a collateral purpose it is liable to be struck down. If the conditions for exercise of the power are not satisfied the proceeding is liable to be quashed. But where power is exercised bona fide and in furtherance of the statutory duties of the tax officers any error of judgment on the part of the officer will not vitiate the exercise of power. Here in the present matter there is no allegation of malafide or any malicious exercise of power. 15. But where power is exercised bona fide and in furtherance of the statutory duties of the tax officers any error of judgment on the part of the officer will not vitiate the exercise of power. Here in the present matter there is no allegation of malafide or any malicious exercise of power. 15. The Delhi High Court in L.R. Gupta v. Union of India and others, (1992) 194 ITR 32, explained the expression “information”, observing that it must be something more than a mere rumour or a gossip or a hunch. There must be some material which can be regarded as information, which must exist on the file on the basis of which the authorizing officer can have reason to believe that action under Section 132 is called for. It has already come on record that detailed secret information with regard to unaccounted black money was received by the concerned authority. The said information contained detailed facts and particulars which could not have been ignored. As a precautionary measure in order to verify the secret information received by the concerned authority, personal visit was made by the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Investigation) and he found the secret information to be correct. 16. The blood test receipt dated 7-9-2002 issued in the name of N. Hari to N.H. Rao, ADIT (Investigation) for testing the blood of the concerned officer is on the department’s record which clearly reveals that the concerned officer had visited the business premises of the petitioner No. 1 on 7-9-2002 and had paid Rs. 30/- for getting his blood tested. Secret information and subsequent verification thereof by the ADIT (Investigation) clearly provide enough foundation and material to the authority to form the basis for reason to believe. Therefore, it cannot be said that the reason to believe, formed by the concerned authority, was on the basis of mere rumour or a gossip or a hunch. There was definite material before the concerned officer before exercising power under Section 132 of the Act. 17. In order to authorize such a search under Section 132 there must be two conditions (a) information in the possession of the named authority and (b) in consequence of which he may have reason to believe that the person concerned is in possession of money etc. 17. In order to authorize such a search under Section 132 there must be two conditions (a) information in the possession of the named authority and (b) in consequence of which he may have reason to believe that the person concerned is in possession of money etc. which represents either wholly or partly income which had not been or would not be disclosed for the purposes of the Act. In order to resort to the proceedings under Section 132 both the conditions must be fulfilled. In the present case there was information in consequence of which the authority proceeded and formed his belief. The sufficiency or otherwise of the information cannot be examined by the Court in writ jurisdiction, the existence of information and its relevance to the formation of the belief is only open to judicial scrutiny. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that material/information referred to herein, means information or knowledge derived from an external source and has placed reliance on the decision of Apex Court in CIT v. A. Rahman & Company, (1968) 67 ITR 11 (SC). The aforesaid authority cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the matter. The original record which has been produced before us clearly suggests that the secret information in writing was received from the external source by the authority concerned containing the detailed facts and particulars. Consequent to the said information, which was received from the external source, the authority concerned made a personal visit to the business premises of the petitioners to verify the said information before proceeding against the petitioners and he found that the secret information received was quite authentic. The basis for personal inquiry was the secret information received by the department. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that information or knowledge derived was not from the external source is not correct. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioners has cited the following authorities of the Apex Court as well as of this Court in support of his contention : (1) Ganga Prasad Maheshwari v. CIT, 1983 (139) ITR 1043; (2) Dr. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioners has cited the following authorities of the Apex Court as well as of this Court in support of his contention : (1) Ganga Prasad Maheshwari v. CIT, 1983 (139) ITR 1043; (2) Dr. Anita Sahai v. Director (Investigation), (2003) 264 ITR 28 (All); (3) Ravi Iron Industries v. Director (Investigation), (2003) 264 ITR 28 (All); (4) Smt. Kavita Agarwal and others v. Director of Income Tax, 2004 UPTC 262 (All); (5) CIT v. Vindhya Metal Company, (1997) 224 ITR 614 (SC); (6) Ajit Jain v. Union of India and others, (2000) 242 ITR 302 (Del); (7) Union of India v. Ajit Jain, (2003) 260 ITR 80 (SC); (8) Gyanendra Prakash Gupta v. UOI and others, 2008 UPTC 673 (All); (9) Manish Maheshwari v. ACIT and another, (2007) 3 SCC 794 . The aforesaid cases are quite distinguishable and have no bearing on the case in hand. In all the aforesaid cases, the Court has held that there was no relevant material before the concerned authority to form the basis to reason to believe. Whereas in the present case as, we have already discussed that there was relevant material before the concerned authority, warranting issuance of search warrant under Section 132 of the Act. It is not necessary that reasons be supplied to the person concerned, but the same should exist on record. Formation of requisite belief in consequence of such information is sine-qua-non for passing such an order for search and seizure. In the present case said condition is fully satisfied. The authorization in the present case has been made by the competent authority and has been issued objectively on the basis of the material in its possession. This Court cannot examine the adequacy or sufficiency of such information. 20. A perusal of the original record produced before us clearly indicates that there was relevant material before the Director of Income Tax (Investigation) to form the requisite opinion, having reason to believe that there had been unaccounted money/assets with the petitioners . It cannot be said that there was no material to initiate proceeding under Section 132 of the Act. At the stage of authorisation to search and seizure under Section 132 of the Act the consideration is as to whether there is some relevant material so as to warrant proceeding under Section 132 of the Act. It cannot be said that there was no material to initiate proceeding under Section 132 of the Act. At the stage of authorisation to search and seizure under Section 132 of the Act the consideration is as to whether there is some relevant material so as to warrant proceeding under Section 132 of the Act. The question of sufficiency cannot be gone into at the time of initiation of proceeding under Section 132 of the Act and consequently the notices issued under Section 158-BC are valid and have been issued in accordance with law. 21. In view of the above, we are of the view that the authority has proceeded in accordance with law as the order of search and seizure by the competent authority has been issued strictly in consonance with the statutory provisions and there was sufficient material before the authority concerned to reasonably believe on the basis of the information in his possession, that the action was required to be taken under the provisions of Section 132(1) of the Act. The concerned authority was fully justified to visit the business premises of the petitioner No. 1 in order to verify the secret information received by the department. 22. Before parting with the judgment it is made clear that the authority below will not be influenced by any of the observations made in this judgment and it will be an independent exercise of the concerned authority to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law in pursuance of notice issued under Section 158-BC of the Act. 23. In the result, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. ————