Search seizure retention under section 132(9A) becomes unlawful if seized assets are not handed over within the prescribed period.

Where section 132(9A) governs a search seizure, seized books, documents or assets must be handed over to the jurisdictional Income-tax Officer within fifteen days. Continued retention beyond that period is unlawful, and the jurisdictional officer cannot validly rely on section 132(8) powers on that basis. The text also notes that an earlier decision on the unamended position was treated as binding, while a later Revenue-backed decision was distinguished for arising in a different statutory and factual context. The seized articles were therefore entitled to be returned.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seized articles retained beyond the period prescribed under section 132(9A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could validly continue to be held by the Revenue and whether the petitioners were entitled to return of the seized articles.

Analysis: The seizure was made under section 132(1) by an officer lacking jurisdiction over the petitioners, and under section 132(9A) the seized books, documents or assets had to be handed over to the jurisdictional Income-tax Officer within fifteen days, after which the statutory powers under section 132(8) or section 132(9) alone could be exercised by that officer. The prior decision applying the unamended legal position on retention beyond the prescribed period was treated as binding, while the later decision relied upon by the Revenue was held distinguishable because it arose after the introduction of Chapter XIV-B and related to a different factual and statutory setting.

Conclusion: The retention beyond the prescribed period was unlawful, and the jurisdictional officer could not validly continue to exercise powers over the seized articles on that basis. The petitioners were entitled to return of the seized articles.

Ratio Decidendi: Where section 132(9A) governs a search seizure, failure to hand over the seized assets within the prescribed period renders continued retention illegal and prevents exercise of section 132(8) powers on that basis by the jurisdictional officer.

---