RUMA PAL,J. - (1.) ON 23rd Dec., 1981, there was a search and seizure at the petitioner's premises. Various documents, share scrips and Rs. 90,000 in cash were seized. This writ application has been filed for return of the documents and share scrips.
(2.) THE only point argued by the petitioner is that he is entitled to the return of the documents and share scrips because the respondent authorities have no authority to retain them under the provisions of s. 132(8) of the IT Act, 1961 (referred to as "the Act" hereafter). Sec. 132(8) reads : "(8) The books of account or other documents seized under sub-s. (1) or sub-s. (1A) shall not be retained by the authorised officer for a period exceeding one hundred and eighty 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 CIT or CIT for such retention is obtained : Provided that the Chief CIT or CIT shall not authorise the retention of the books of account and other documents for a period exceeding thirty days after all the proceedings under the Indian IT Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or this Act in respect of the years for which the books of account or other documents' are relevant are completed." A series of judicial decisions have held that books and documents seized in a search conducted under s. 132 of the Act may be retained by the AO under sub-s. (8) of that section only : when (i) reasons are recorded in writing by the AO seeking the CIT's approval; (ii) the CIT in fact approves the retention; (iii) both the recorded reasons of the AO as well as the CIT's approval are communicated to the assessee concerned; and (iv) the communication is made as expeditiously as possible (See CIT vs. Oriental Rubber Works (1984) 38 CTR (SC) 154 : (1984) 145 ITR 477 (SC) : TC62R.172; Thanthi Trust vs. CIT (1987) 62 CTR (Del) 167 : (1987) 167 ITR 397 (Del) : TC62R.184 and Jorawar Singh Baid vs. Asstt. CIT (1991) 192 ITR 502 (Cal) : TC62R.192. According to the petitioner, the last two preconditions to the retention of the petitioner's books, share scrips and documents were missing at least after 30th June, 1983.
(3.) ACCORDING to the respondents, after the seizure under s. 132(1) on 23rd Dec., 1981, by letter dated 4/7th June, 1982, the AO (then known as the ITO), had applied for approval to the CIT for retention of the documents seized recording his reasons in the letter for such request. The CIT approved the retention by an order dated 15th June, 1982. Retention was permitted till 30th June, 1983. The CIT's order dt. 15th June, 1982, was served on the petitioner on 18th June, 1982. It is said by the respondents that by subsequent orders dt. 23rd June, 1983, 21st June, 1984, and 18th June, 1985, the CIT had extended the period for the retention of the documents under s. 132 (8) of the Act till 31st March, 1987, and on all occasions the orders had been communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition had been filed on 10th Dec., 1985. It is, therefore, submitted that the retention of the books, documents, etc. was lawful.;