1970 (5) TMI 8

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... other documents of the petitioner under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It is alleged that these books and documents were seized in September, 1965. The seizure admittedly was in pursuance of the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 132. And it would be necessary to consider in this application the provisions of sub-sections (8), (10) and (12) of the said section. These sub-sections .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders as it thinks fit." From the provisions set out above, it is apparent that unless at least the approval of the Commissioner is communicated to the person whose books and documents are seized he cannot exercise the rights conferred on him by sub-section (10). A similar view was taken by T. K. Basu J. in Matter No. 204 of 1 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... titioner, the respondent has no power, authority and jurisdiction to retain the seized documents. In paragraph 19 of the affidavit-in-opposition of Satyendra Nath Sen affirmed on the 6th August, 1969, it is alleged that the period of retention of the seized books and documents has been lawfully and duly extended from time to time. No copy of any order of approval of the Commissioner subsequent to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X