1987 (3) TMI 13

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dressed to the managers of three different banks where some persons named in those orders, being the family members of the petitioner, held certain accounts in their names. By these orders, the Income-tax Officer ordered the banks not to allow operation of these accounts till further orders from him. Besides the seizure of books of account and documents, a key of a bank locker found in the premises searched was also seized. Initially, the writ petition was filed seeking mandamus from this court that the respondents be restrained from taking any proceedings in pursuance of the search and seizure and also for a direction that the respondents be restrained from passing any order against the petitioner with reference to the seizure effected .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ized within 15 days of the seizure to the Assessing Officer of the petitioner. This has not been done. For this proposition, he referred to the provisions of section 132(9A). According to counsel, retention of the books, etc., by the authorised officer is wholly without jurisdiction. There is no force in any of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. In the supplementary counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Department, a copy of the order dated January 15, 1987, passed by the Commissioner has been filed. By this order, the Assessing Officer has been authorised to retain the books of account and documents till December 30, 1987. It is not disputed that such retention could be granted by the Commissioner under section 132(8). .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ication to interfere with the order of the Commissioner under article 226 of the Constitution. The next submission of the petitioner is that orders of restraint issued to the bank managers are not liable to be sustained. The argument is that no order under section 132(5) has been passed. The period of 120 days from the date of the raid within which such an order could be made has expired. Therefore, the prohibitory orders issued to the managers of the three banks are of no avail as no order can now be passed under section 132(5). For the same reasons, according to the petitioner, he is entitled to the return of the key of the bank locker taken in custody by the Income-tax Officer during the raid. Learned counsel for the Department too .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X