Retention of seized books beyond the statutory period was sustained where prior approval and communication of sanction were shown on record.

Retention of seized books of account beyond 180 days was upheld where the petition failed to plead that prior approval under section 132(8) of the Income-tax Act had not been obtained within time, and the counter-affidavit showed that permission was in fact granted within the statutory period. The objection that the sanction was not communicated to the assessee also failed because the record contained an endorsement showing despatch of the order to both the Income-tax Officer and the assessee. The petition was dismissed as lacking merit.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the retention of seized books of account beyond 180 days was illegal for want of prior permission under section 132(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether the sanction for such retention was invalid for want of communication to the assessee.

Issue (i): Whether the retention of seized books of account beyond 180 days was illegal for want of prior permission under section 132(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The challenge failed because the petition did not contain a factual assertion that the Commissioner's prior permission had not been obtained within 180 days. The counter-affidavit showed that the requisite permission had in fact been granted within time.

Conclusion: The contention was rejected and the retention was not held illegal.

Issue (ii): Whether the sanction for such retention was invalid for want of communication to the assessee.

Analysis: The record showed that the Commissioner's order granting sanction under section 132(8) bore an endorsement indicating despatch of the order to both the Income-tax Officer and the assessee. There was no factual basis to support the plea of non-communication.

Conclusion: The contention was rejected and the sanction was treated as duly communicated.

Final Conclusion: The petition disclosed no merit and was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A challenge to retention of seized books beyond the statutory period fails where the petition lacks a factual foundation and the record shows that prior permission and communication of sanction were duly established.

---