https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20045 Retention of seized books of account, documents and share scrips under section 132(8) of the Income-tax Act was held unsustainable where the Assessing Officer's recorded reasons and the Commissioner's approval were not shown to have been served on the assessee. The Court noted that valid retention requires written reasons, prior approval, and expeditious communication of both to the assessee. The respondents failed to prove service, the despatch register was unavailable, and the presumption of regularity under section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act could not override evidence that service was in dispute and rebutted. Section 132(10) was not an alternative remedy because it presupposes receipt of the approval. en-us Tue, 14 Sep 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:01:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20045 Retention of seized books of account, documents and share scrips under section 132(8) of the Income-tax Act was held unsustainable where the Assessing Officer's recorded reasons and the Commissioner's approval were not shown to have been served on the assessee. The Court noted that valid retention requires written reasons, prior approval, and expeditious communication of both to the assessee. The respondents failed to prove service, the despatch register was unavailable, and the presumption of regularity under section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act could not override evidence that service was in dispute and rebutted. Section 132(10) was not an alternative remedy because it presupposes receipt of the approval. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 14 Sep 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20045