Survey restriction under section 133A(4) cannot override valid seizure of negotiable instruments in tax recovery proceedings.

Promissory notes validly attached and seized as negotiable instruments in recovery proceedings were not protected by the survey restriction in section 133A(4). The Court treated the survey power as limited to inspection, verification, statement recording and related acts, and held that its prohibition on removal of books, documents, cash, stock or valuable articles could not defeat a distinct recovery action taken by the Tax Recovery Officer under rule 30 of the Second Schedule. The challenge therefore failed, and the notes were not liable to be returned.

---

---

Issues: Whether promissory notes seized during an income-tax survey are protected by section 133A(4) and required to be returned.

Analysis: The statutory power of survey under section 133A is confined to inspection, verification, recording statements, and other limited acts connected with the survey. The limitation in section 133A(4) prohibits removal of books, documents, cash, stock, or valuable articles in the course of survey, but the promissory notes in question were treated separately as negotiable instruments attached and seized by the Tax Recovery Officer under rule 30 of the Second Schedule pursuant to recovery proceedings. The Court held that the impounding of other documents and the attachment and seizure of negotiable instruments under the recovery rule operated on a different legal footing and that the survey provision could not be used to invalidate the Tax Recovery Officer's action.

Conclusion: The promissory notes were not liable to be returned under section 133A(4), and the challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Negotiable instruments validly attached and seized under the tax recovery rules are not protected by the survey restriction in section 133A(4), and the limited powers of survey cannot override a distinct recovery action taken under the Second Schedule.

---