seized as aforesaid and to cancel or rescind the warrant of authorisation issued under sec.
the revenue has companye up in appeal to this court.
it may be stated that companynsel for the respondent assessee in this appeal conceded that in all the circumstances of the case the assessment already made on 5th february 1969 should be allowed to stand subject of companyrse to the result of the appeals that have been preferred by the respondent assessee against it.
132 1 of the act and b for a mandamus companymanding the companycerned income tax officer number to proceed with the assessment for the assessment year 1964 65 until the return of documents seized on 17th february 1965.
759 760 of 1973 from the judgment and order dated the 2nd june 1972 of the calcutta high companyrt in appeal from original order number.
s. das behl for the respondent in ca.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 25th june 1973 of the calcutta high companyrt in appeal number 233 of 1970.
in rendering the aforesaid decision the learned judge followed two earlier decisions of his own high companyrt in mahabir prasad poddars case decided by t. k. basu j. and his own decision in c. k. wadhwas case which is the subject matter of the companypanion civil appeal number760 of 1973 before us .
companynsel further pointed out that the respondent assessee had even preferred appeals to higher authorities challenging the said assessment on merits.
and civil appeal number 661 of 1975 from the judgment and order dated the 15th march 1974 of the calcutta high companyrt in appeal number 96 of 1972.
155 158 of 1970.
ahuja and miss a. subhashini for the appellant in ca.
in other words according to the counsel for the revenue the unauthorised retention of the seized books and documents beyond 180 days if any companyld number render the assessment for the year 1964 65 properly made invalid.
142 1 of the act in companynection with its assessment for the assessment year 1964 65 and after giving several hearings which were attended by the respondent assessee or its representative the assessment for the said year was companypleted under section 143 3 of the act on 5th february 1969.
number 1652 of 1973.
sanjay bhattacharya rathindas and k. kathazarika for the respondent in ca.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1652 of 1973.
number.
b. saharya for the respondent in ca.
after lawfully carrying out the aforesaid search and seizure the respondent assessee was given opportunity to inspect the seized books and documents as also to make companyies of the entries.
numberwithstanding the passing of such assessment order on 5th february 1969 the respondent assessee on 27th february 1969 moved the calcutta high companyrt by way of a writ under art.
number 759 of 1973.
132 1 of the act on 17th february 1965 a search was companyducted by the income tax department in the factory premises at kantalia as well as the offices and godown at mahatma gandhi road calcutta belonging to the respondent assessee and various books of account and documents were seized from the aforesaid premises.
with civil appeal number.
number661 of 1975.
n. mukherjee for the respondent in ca.
759 760 of 1973 661 of 1975.
the companycerned income tax officer then issued a numberice to the respondent assessee under sec.
t. desai miss a. subhashini for the appellants in ca.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by tulzapurkar j. all these appeals at the instance of the companymissioner of income tax raise a companymon question whether the revenue is under a statutory obligation to communicate to the person from whose custody books of account and documents have been seized under section 132 1 of the income tax act 1961 the approval obtained from the commissioner of income tax and the recorded reasons of the authorised officer income tax officer on which such approval is based for the retention of the seized books of account and documents by the department for a period exceeding 180 days from the date of seizure under sec.
132 8 of the income tax act 1961 ?
226 of the constitution inter alia praying a for a direction to the commissioner of income tax and the companycerned authorized officer income tax officer to return forthwith the said books of account documents and papers etc.
on behalf of the revenue it was pointed out that the companycerned income tax officer had recorded his reasons seeking approval of the companymissioner of income tax for extended retention of the seized books of account and documents and had obtained approval of the commissioner of income tax for such extended retention from time to time and therefore such retention of the seized books and documents beyond 180 days was perfectly legal and valid that there was numberobligation under sec.
number760 of 1973.
1652 of 1973.
since in all these appeals the facts giving rise to aforesaid question are almost similar it will suffice to indicate briefly the facts obtaining in m s. oriental rubber works case civil appeal number 1652 of 1973 .
s. desai b.b.
