https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9599 Search and seizure proceedings were upheld because the authorised officer had jurisdiction over the assessee under the notification and orders issued under the Income-tax Act, and the Assistant Director of Income-tax (Investigation) could act as an Assessing Officer under section 2(7A). The seized documents were retained and used for post-search enquiry and preparation of the appraisal report within the statutory framework, and section 132(9A) was treated as facilitating speedy assessment rather than invalidating a valid search. The challenge to lack of jurisdiction and illegality in post-search action therefore failed. en-us Fri, 21 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9599 Search and seizure proceedings were upheld because the authorised officer had jurisdiction over the assessee under the notification and orders issued under the Income-tax Act, and the Assistant Director of Income-tax (Investigation) could act as an Assessing Officer under section 2(7A). The seized documents were retained and used for post-search enquiry and preparation of the appraisal report within the statutory framework, and section 132(9A) was treated as facilitating speedy assessment rather than invalidating a valid search. The challenge to lack of jurisdiction and illegality in post-search action therefore failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 21 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9599