Susanta Chatterji, J. - (1.) Having heard Mr. Bhattacharya, for the petitioner, and Mr. Som, for the income-tax authorities, at length, it appears that the petitioner had filed the present writ petition for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to release the books of account and documents seized in terms of the seizure list being annexure-A to the petition. This case has a chequered background indeed. The petitioner filed a writ petition previously and obtained an interim order which was ultimately modified by Monoj Kumar Mookherjee J. on July 26, 1989, directing, inter alia, that any proceeding initiated pursuant to the impugned search and seizure may continue and final orders may be passed therein but the same should not be given effect to without the leave of this court. The petitioner may deposit any amount in the account referred to in the annexure-J to the said writ petition but the petitioner should not operate this account.
(2.) Being aggrieved, the present petitioner went up in appeal and the Division Bench, by the order dated November 22, 1989, passed an interim order to the effect "that interim relief confining implementation and operation under appeal only to the proceedings under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and it is clarified that no further action shall be taken so far as proceedings under Section 131 alone are concerned." It is submitted that the aforesaid writ petition is still pending.
(3.) Mr. Bhattacharya, appearing for the petitioner, has drawn the attention of the court to Section 132(8) of the Income-tax Act which provides, inter alia, that the books of account or other documents seized under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (1A) shall not be retained by the authorised officer for a period exceeding 180 days from the date of the seizure unless the reasons for retaining the same are recorded by him in writing and the approval of the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner for such retention is obtained. In support of this contention, he has also drawn the attention of this court to the decision in CIT v. Oriental Rubber Works . The Supreme Court found that the scheme of Sub-sections (8), (10) and (12) of Section 132 of the Income-tax Act makes it amply clear that, where books and documents of an assessee seized in a search conducted pursuant to an authorisation issued under Sub-section (1) are retained beyond the period of 180 days from the date of seizure, there is a statutory obligation on the Revenue to communicate to the assessee not merely the Commissioner's approval but also the reasons recorded by the authorised officer or the Income-tax Officer on the basis of which the approval has been obtained ; and such communication must be made as expeditiously as possible after the passing of the order of approval by the Commissioner, It is further observed that, in default of such expeditious 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. Mr. Bhattacharya has drawn inspiration from the decision of the Supreme Court and to the statute itself to ventilate his grievance before this court and to ask for the relief as indicated above.;