Failure to consider all appellate grounds led to remand, while factual challenge to search and seizure was left to departmental authority.

An appellate order under section 132(12) could not be sustained where it addressed only the relief on capital gains and failed to consider the remaining grounds urged in the appeal; the order was set aside to that extent and remanded for fresh disposal after rehearing the petitioners. A challenge to the validity of the search and seizure, however, turned on disputed facts and was not fit for determination in writ proceedings; that issue was left to the competent departmental authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellate order under section 132(12) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 required interference for failure to consider all contentions raised in the appeal; (ii) whether the validity of the search and seizure could be adjudicated in writ proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the appellate order under section 132(12) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 required interference for failure to consider all contentions raised in the appeal.

Analysis: The appellate authority had dealt mainly with the question of relief relating to capital gains and had not recorded a speaking consideration of the other grounds urged in the appeal. Since all the contentions were not addressed, the order could not be sustained to that extent.

Conclusion: The appellate order was set aside to the extent of non-consideration of the remaining contentions, and the matter was remanded for fresh disposal after rehearing the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the validity of the search and seizure could be adjudicated in writ proceedings.

Analysis: The challenge to the search and seizure depended on disputed facts requiring evaluation by the departmental authorities in accordance with law rather than determination in the writ petition.

Conclusion: The Court declined to decide the validity of the search and seizure and left the matter to the competent departmental authority.

Final Conclusion: The petition resulted in partial relief by way of remand of the appellate order and temporary protection against recovery pending fresh orders, while the factual challenge to the search and seizure was left open for determination by the statutory authorities.

---