Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. - (1.) The petitioner being a partnership firm and an assessee of the income-tax initially challenged the search warrant dated December 16, 1999, search and panchanama dated December 17, 1999, notice dated December 20, 2000, order dated December 29, 2000 and order dated December 14, 2001, and all proceedings, notices and orders relating thereto and thereunder. When the writ petition was filed the prayer made therein was very relevant. Now after affidavit-in-opposition having been filed, it appears to me that the challenge against the search warrant and panchanama dated December 17, 1999, and notice dated December 20, 2000, have now become infructuous in view of the stand taken by the Revenue in the affidavit-in-opposition that the proceedings Under Section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), as against the petitioner have been dropped. In view of dropping of the proceedings now the question remains as to whether seized books of account and documents of the writ petitioner are liable to be returned to the petitioner or not.
(2.) Mr. Murarka, learned counsel appearing in support of this petition, submits that in view of dropping of the aforesaid proceedings the respondents have no jurisdiction or authority to retain the books of account any more. He further submits even their authority to retain the books of account had and has no legal sanction. Firstly, there has been no lawful authorisation to retain the same after the expiry of the statutory period. Moreover, the purported order of authorisation was never communicated to the writ petitioner. This impugned order of authorisation will have legitimacy when certain conditions are fulfilled. One of them is communication to the noticee of the search warrant and/or the persons affected thereunder. In support of his submission, he has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in CIT v. Oriental Rubber Works.
(3.) He further submits that the person authorising, as it appears from the affidavit-in-opposition, has no jurisdiction to pass any order of authorisation as he is not the officer as contemplated Under Section 132(9A) of the aforesaid Act. Therefore, the order of authorisation itself is null and void. In support of his contention, he has referred to a decision of the Supreme Court reported in CIT v. K. V. Krishnaswamy Naidu and Co.;