9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (3) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d counsel for the parties, the writ petition itself is being disposed of since it is stated that the matter is covered by a decision of the Supreme Court. A search was conducted pursuant to an authorisation issued under sub-section (1) of section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and certain documents as mentioned in annexure " A " to the writ petition and the books of accounts were seized from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act to communicate the reasons which the Income-tax Officer had forwarded to the Commissioner who granted permission for continued detention of the seized documents and the books of account. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Oriental Rubber Works [1984] 145 IT 477. In this judgment the Supreme Court has analysed the scheme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tious communication, the Commissioner's decision according approval will not become effective and any further retention of the books or documents seized would become invalid and unlawful. Such obligation arises in regard to every approval of the Commissioner that might be accorded from time to time. Two conditions must be fulfilled before an extended retention of books or documents seized in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t mentioned in the aforesaid decision is that the reasons in writing recorded by the authorised officer or the Income-tax Officer concerned seeking the Commissioner's approval must be communicated to the assessee from whom the books or documents have been seized. Admittedly, the reasons were not communicated and the petitioner had to go in appeal. In view of the aforesaid decision, the further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
