TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (5) TMI 29
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st were elaborated. On or about March 1, 1979, a supplementary deed was also executed to conform to the provisions of section 13(5) of the Act whereafter, the Commissioner granted exemption in terms of section 80G of the. Act by an order dated January 1, 1980. It is stated that such exemption had been continued and the claims made by the trust under section 11 of the Act had been accepted. For the assessment year 1997-98, the assessment proceedings were completed by the Assessing Officer, Ward No. 1, Panipat. Returns for the assess ment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 were also filed before the said authority. A survey is purported to have been conducted, inter alia, in the premises of the hospital run by the trust, where Dr. Nalini Mahajan is employed. According to the petitioners, Dr. Nalini Mahajan does not have any other source of income except interest, dividend and salary. The assessment proceedings up to 2000-2001 had been completed by the Assessing Officer. During the course of survey operations, at the instance of the officers conducting the survey, search warrants were issued by the Additional Director (Inv.), Delhi. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said purported s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Assessing Officer, Panipat, to the Assessing Officer, Central Circle 20, New Delhi, vide order dated February 14, 2001. On February 22, 2001, the Deputy Director of Income-tax (Inv.), i.e., respondent No. 2, informed the petitioner that the Director of Income-tax (Inv.), i.e., respondent No. 1, has granted approval to him to retain the seized documents, books of account in the case of the Mahajan group of cases up to June 30, 2001. On or about March 5, 2001, the petitioner requested respondent No. 2 for copies of the reasons recorded for retention of the books of account and documents and a copy of the approval granted by respondent No. 1. However, no reply to the above letter dated March 5, 2001, was received till May 15, 2001. The request, however, was complied with only on May 15, 2001, when this court in the course of hearing of Civil Writ Petition No. 2999 of 2001 of Dr. Nalini Mahajan asked the respondents as to why reasons recorded by the statutory authority had not been supplied. Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated May 18, 2001, supplied to the petitioner the reasons recorded, inter alia, stating that approval for extension of retention of the books of account and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 18(5) read with section 17(2) of the SICA for finalising the modified rehabilitation scheme. On November 11, 1997, the modified rehabilitation scheme after certain modifications was approved by the BIFR on OTS basis, which also envisaged grant of certain concessions by the Income-tax Department under sections 41(1), 72 and 80 of the Act. After implementation of the said rehabilitation scheme, there was substantial improvement in the performance of the petitioner-company and its net worth turned from negative to positive and after considering the matter and report of the monitoring agency, the BIFR discharged the company from the purview of the SICA. On or about February 14, 2001, respondent No. 1, i.e., the Commissioner of income-tax, Rohtak, transferred the case of the petitioner-company from Rohtak to Central Circle-20, New Delhi, with effect from February 22, 2001. Thereafter, assessments for the assessment years 1995-96 to 1999-2000 were completed accordingly. On August 28, 2000, respondent No. 1 issued an authorisation warrant under section 132(1) of the Act for carrying out search and seizure operations against the petitioner-company's factory and office at G....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pany again requested respondent No. 3 to return the books of account and documents or to supply photocopies thereof and made a reference to its earlier letters written in this behalf and in response thereto on March 27, 2001, respondent No. 3 informed the petitioner-company that respondent No. 1 had granted approval for retention of the books of account and documents till June 30, 2001. On June 1, 2001, the petitioner-company's representative appeared before respondent No. 5 and requested for photocopies and they were asked to come on June 7, 2001, on which date the process of grant of photocopies started. The petitioner was asked to file a return for the block period starting April 1, 1990, to November 9, 2000, by respondent No. 5 vide notice under section 158BC of the Act. C.W.P. No. 3336 of 2001: The first petitioner is a company registered and incorporated under the Companies Act. It is engaged in the business of investment and export of various commodities by sub-letting the properties, dealing in real estate, etc. Its assessment up to 1999-2000 was completed. On August 28, 2000, the Director of Income-tax (Investigation) (in short, "the Director") issued a warr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... searches and seizures were effected which were done upon compliance with requisite procedural safeguards. The respondents would contend that the "reasonable belief arrived at by the appropriate authority for the purpose of issuance of warrant in the case of section 132(1) of the Act was not irrational, mala fide or arbitrary, but the power was exercised bona fide by the appropriate authority, which was cogently supported by information and material. It has been contended that 25 per cent. of the rights of property No. 27, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, has been sold to Verka Investment Pvt. Ltd. for Rs.31 crores and they continued to share 35 per cent. share in the building even after receiving the payment. It was contended that a notification has been issued by the Central Board Of Direct Taxes (in short, "the Board") on September 6, 1989, in terms whereof the Director has been authorised to perform the functions in respect of the whole of India. It has been contended that Pan Foods Ltd. and Mahajan Industries Ltd. have a common office in New Delhi. According to the respondents, the assessees were offered to obtain photocopies of the documents on February 26, 200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earned counsel contended that the purported searches had been made by conversion of survey operation, which is not permissible in law. He would urge that the satisfaction must be based on objective criteria and not subjective satisfaction and the former is a pre-condition to make search or seizure, which having been absent in the instant case, the entire proceeding must be held to be wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. In support of the said contentions, strong reliance has been placed by learned counsel on Balwant Singh v. R.D. Shah, Director of Inspection, Income tax [1969] 71 ITR 550 (Delhi); janak Raj Sharma v. Director of Inspection (Investigation) [1995] 215 ITR 234 (P & H); Harmel Singh v. Union of India [1993] 204 ITR 334 (P & H); S.C. Sibal v. CIT [1977] 106 ITR 102 (P & H); Dr. C. Bala krishnan Nair v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 70 (Ker) and CIT v. K.V. Krishnaswamy Naidu and Co. [2001] 249 ITR 794 (SC). Submissions of the Revenue: Mr. Sanjiv Khanna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, on the other hand, argued that the issue of authorisation under section 132 of the Act being purely an administrative act in terms whereof no right of the parties i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g in the case of evasion of income-tax. Seizure of books of account and documents of these related/connected persons would not make the search illegal. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the decision of ITO v. Seth Bros. [1969] 74 ITR 836 (SC) and Dr. Partap Singh v. Director of Enforcement [1985] 155 ITR 166 (SC) and Narayan R. Bandekar v. Second ITO [1989] 177 ITR 207 (Bom). Issues: The principal questions, which arise for consideration, in view of the rival contentions of the parties as noticed hereinbefore, would be: (a) Whether the Additional Director (Inv.) has the requisite jurisdiction to authorise any officer to effect search and seizure in purported exercise of power conferred upon him under section 132 of the Act? and (b) Whether there had been sufficient materials before the appropriate authority to satisfy himself that the authorisation for search could be issued? (c) Whether the notification dated September 6, 1989, is valid in law? (d) Whether reasons for retention of books of account can be recorded after a period of 15 days? (e) Whether the provisions of section 132(9A) are directory in nature? Statutory provision: Before dealing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch order, and any provision of this Act requiring approval or sanction of the joint Commissioner shall not apply." "Section 132(1): Where the Director-General or Director or the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner or any such Joint Director or joint Commissioner as may be empowered in this behalf by the Board, in consequence of information in his possession, has reason to believe that- (a) any person to whom a summons under sub-section (1) of section 37 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under sub-section (1) of section 131 of this Act, or a notice under sub-section (4) of section 22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or under sub-section (1) of section 142 of this Act was issued to produce, or cause to be produced, any books of account or other documents has omitted or failed to produce, or cause to be produced, such books of account, or other documents as required by such summons or notice, or (b) any person to whom a summons or notice as aforesaid has been or might be issued will not, or would not, produce or cause to be produced, any books of account or other documents which will be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under the Indian Income-tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Commissioner has no jurisdiction over the person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b), or clause (c), then, notwithstanding anything contained in section 120 it shall be competent for him to exercise the powers under this sub-section in all cases where he has reason to believe that any delay in getting the authorisation from the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner having jurisdiction over such person may be prejudicial to the interests of the revenue: Provided further that where it is not possible or practicable to take physical possession of any valuable article or thing and remove it to a safe place due to its volume, weight or other physical characteristics or due to its being of a dangerous nature, the authorised officer may serve an order on the owner or the person who is in immediate possession or control thereof that he shall not remove, part with or otherwise deal with it, except with the previous permission of such authorised officer and such action of the authorised officer shall be deemed to be seizure of such valuable article or thing under clause (iii)..." "Section 132(8) and (8A): (8) The books of account or other documents seized under sub-section (1) or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 133A: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, an income-tax authority may enter-- (a) any place within the limits of the area assigned to him, or (b) any place occupied by any person in respect of whom he exercises jurisdiction, or (c) any place in respect of which he is authorised for the purposes of this section by such income-tax authority, who is assigned the area within which such place is situated or who exercises jurisdiction in respect of any person occupying such place, at which a business or profession is carried on, whether such place be the principal place or not of such business or profession, and require any proprietor, employee or any other person who may at that time and place be attending in any manner to, or helping in, the carrying on of such business or profession-- (i) to afford him the necessary facility to inspect such books of account or other documents as he may require and which may be available at such place, (ii) to afford him the necessary facility to check or verify the cash, stock or other valuable article or thing which may be found therein, and (iii) to furnish such information as he may re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the block period in the manner laid down in section 158BB and the provisions of section 142, sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 143 and section 144 shall, so far as may be, apply; (c) the Assessing Officer, on determination of the undisclosed income of the block period in accordance with this Chapter, shall pass an order of assessment and determine the tax payable by him on the basis of such assessment; (d) the assets seized under section 132 or requisitioned under section 132A shall be retained to the extent necessary and the provisions of section 132B shall apply subject to such modifications as may be necessary and the references to 'regular assessment' or 'reassessment' in section 132B shall be construed as references to 'block assessment'." "Section 158BD: Mere the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any undisclosed income belongs to any person, other than the person with respect to whom search was made under section 132 or whose books of account or other documents or any assets were requisitioned under section 132A, then, the books of account, other documents or assets seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...." or "Director" are exhaustive ones. It is a well-settled principle of law that although the definition would govern the statute whenever that word is used in the body thereof, where the context makes the definition given in an interpretation clause inapplicable, a defined word may have to be given a meaning different from that contained in the interpretation clause. Before proceeding to deal with the questions raised, we may notice that the writ petitions of Mr. Rakesh Mahajan, Pan Foods Ltd. and Mahajan Industries Pvt. Ltd. have been filed after a long delay, i.e., on August 8, 2001, July 13, 2001, and May 22, 2001, respectively. These writ petitions have been filed after the reasons for passing of an order under section 132(9A) of the Act had been communicated. So far as the correctness or otherwise of the said orders are concerned, appeals will be maintainable under section 132(10) of the Act and in that view of the matter apart from the question of jurisdiction, we need not to go into the merits of the matter. In Arti Gases v. Director of Income-tax (Investigation) [2001] 248 ITR 55 (Guj), in the fact situation obtaining therein, it was held: "The learned advoca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... all officers, who come within the purview of the interpretation clause of "Director" or "Director-General", it was not necessary to mention therein that where the Director or the Director-General or the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner or any such joint Director or the Joint Commissioner, as the case may be, empowered in this behalf by the Board inasmuch as the latter authorities would have also come within the pur view of the definition of the Director-General or the Director. If the contention of Mr. Khanna is accepted, then even an authority, who is lower in rank, may also issue authorisation in favour of an officer of higher rank, which situation cannot, in our opinion, be countenanced. Furthermore advisedly, Parliament has used the article "the" before the authority specified for exercising this statutory power. Words which are used in declaring the meaning of other words may also need interpretation and the Legislature may use a word in the same statute in several different senses. In that view of the matter, it would not be correct to contend that the expression as defined in the interpretation clause would necessarily carry the same meaning throughout the statute.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the context requires otherwise, the meaning assigned to it in the said definition need not be applied. 8. A bare perusal of section 2 of the Act shows that it starts with the words 'in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires--'. Let us find out whether in the context of the provisions of section 64 of the Act the defined meaning of the expression 'management' can be assigned to the word mana gement in section 64 of the Act. In para. 3 of the regulation, the essentiality certificate is required to be given by the State Government and permission to establish a new medical college is to be given by the State Government under section 64 of the Act. If we give the defined meaning to the expression 'management' occurring in section 64 of the Act, it would mean the State Government is required to apply to itself for grant of permission to set up a Government medical college through the university. Similarly it would also mean the State Government applying to itself for grant of essentiality certificate under para. 3 of the regulation. We are afraid the defined meaning of the expression 'management' cannot be assigned to the expression 'management' occurring in section 64 of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect. While giving effect thereto, the court must not forget that the scope and object of such a provision is subject to its applicability and it is used having relation to the context only. In the instant case, on September 6, 1989, by reason of a notification bearing No. S.0. 703(E), dated September 6, 1989, only the Director of Investigation, Delhi, has been empowered to issue authorisation for search and seizure operation all over India. A statutory power is conferred by the Board in favour of a particular statutory authority. The scope and purport of the said definition, thus, cannot be extended to other authorities in whose favour the power has not been delegated. It is not in dispute that the Additional Director is also lower in rank than the Director. It is now well-settled that when a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain manner, the same must be done in that manner or not at all. All other proceedings are necessarily forbidden (see Nazir Ahmad v. The King-Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253; [1936] 63 IA 372; Viteralli v. Saton 3 Law Ed. 1012 and Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India [1979] 3 SCC 489; AIR 1979 SC 1628). A delegation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r not at all. Other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden. The intention of the Legislature in enacting section 20(1) was to confer a power on the authorities specified therein which power had to be exercised in the manner provided and not otherwise." In any event, if an authority, which had no jurisdiction to issue such an authorisation did so, the same would be liable to be quashed as ultra vires. Sonu Systems (P.) Ltd. v. Chairman, CBDT [2001] 250 ITR 268 (Delhi) whereupon Mr. Khanna placed strong reliance, cannot be said to have any application in the instant case. Therein, having regard to an innocuous omission to delete the word "Deputy", it was held that the said defect did not vitiate the entire search or seizure. It is well-known that a decision is an authority for what it decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. (see Union of India v. Dhanwanti Devi [1996] 6 SCC 44). In CIT v. K. Ramakrishnan [1993] 202 ITR 997 (Ker), it has been stated: "The words used by judges in their judgments are not to be read as if they are words in an Act of Parliament (see the judgment of Lord Reid in the appeal from the above decision--Goodrich v. Paisner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce from the judgment of this court, divorced from the context of the question under consideration and treat it to be the complete 'law' declared by this court. The judgment must be read as a whole and the observations from the judgment have to be considered in the light of the questions which were before this court...' It is also a settled law that a decision is not an authority on a point which was not argued (see Mittal Engg. Works (P.) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1997] 1 SCC 203). In Dias on Jurisprudence, fifth edition, page 143, it is stated- 'Pronouncements of law, which are not part of the ratio decidendi are classed as obiter dicta and are not authoritative. Rationale and dicta tend to shade into each other. The former have law-quality and are binding on lower courts; dicta, too, have law quality but are not binding at all. Vis-a-vis a higher court even the ratio decidendi of a lower court decision has only persuasive force like that of a dictum. It has been pointed out that some dicta are so authoritative that the distinction between ratio and dictum is reduced to vanishing point. Dicta, which have no force, are propositions stated by way of illustration ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ges who were masters of their fields, like Lord Black burn, may often in practice enjoy greater prestige than the rationale of lesser judges.' Referring to Quinn v. Leathem [1900-1903] All ER (Rep) 1; [1901] AC 495 (HL); Krishna Kumar v. Union of India [1990] 4 SCC 207; AIR 1990 SC 1782; CIT v. Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 297 (SC); AIR 1993 SC 43; Regional Manager v. Pawan Kumar Dubey, AIR 1976 SC 1766 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur [1989] 1 SCC 101, it has been held by the Calcutta High Court in Jaya Sen v. Sujit Kumar Sarkar [2000] 1 ILR A and N 145 'It is now well-known that a decision is only an authority for what it decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. It is also wellknown that even a slight distinction in fact or an additional fact may make a lot of difference in decision making process.' In A-One Granites v. State of U.P., AIR 2001 SC 1203; [2001] AIR SCW 848, it is observed: 'The first question which falls for consideration of this court is as to whether the question regarding applicability of rule 72 of the Rules in relation to the present lease is concluded by the earlier decision of this court rendered i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting the existing Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and Deputy Director of Income-tax as joint Commissioner of Income-tax and joint Director of Income-tax respectively. The above changes in designation made it necessary to amend the various sections of the Income-tax Act so that the statutory powers continue to be exercised by the substituted authorities as a result of redesignation. The following substitution of income-tax authorities has been globally made in the Income-tax Act: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From To ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assistant Commissioner Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner Assistant Director Assistant Director or Deputy Direct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mahajan of Mother and Child Hospital. The authorised officer at D-59, Defence Colony, has further informed about a locker in New Delhi Vaults, D-70, Defence Colony, New Delhi. It is believed that the locker contains some incriminating documents and undisclosed assets. Therefore a warrant of authorisation under section 132 of Income-tax Act, 1961, may be issued in r/o said locker also." "Shri Gulshan Raj, DDIT (Inv.), is in charge of section 133A operation and he has reported that the hospital premises contains several incriminating books of account and documents which indicate that Dr. Nalini Mahajan is siphoning off huge amount from the hospital for personal use which have not been reflected in her return. A search operation in the premises of Mahajan group is already going on and, therefore, seizure of documents found in the hospital premise and in the room of Dr. Nalini Mahajan will be necessary. I agree that action under section 132(1) in respect of Dr. Nalini Mahajan Mother and Child Hospital, D-59, Defence Colony, is necessary. Shri Gulshan Raj has also reported a locker in the name of Dr. Nalini Mahajan in New Delhi Vaults, Defence Colony and it is possible that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....auses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of section 132. In L.R. Gupta v. Union of India [1992] 194 ITR 32 (Delhi), the law is stated in the following terms: "A search which is conducted under section 132 is a serious invasion into the privacy of a citizen. Section 132(1) has to be strictly construed and the formation of the opinion or reason to believe by the authorising officer must be apparent from the note recorded by him. The opinion or the belief so recorded must clearly show whether the belief falls under sub-clause (a), (b) or (c) of section 132(1). No search can be ordered except for any of the reasons contained in sub-clause (a), (b) or (c). The satisfaction note should itself show the application of mind and the formation of the opinion by the officer ordering the search. If the reasons which are recorded do not fall under clause (a), (b) or (c), then the authorisation under section 132(1) will have to be quashed. In Seth Bros.'s case [1969] 74 ITR 836 the apex court has stated the law thus: "The section does not confer any arbitrary authority upon the revenue officers. The Commissioner or the Director of Inspection must have, in conse quence of information,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....action under the law. The formation of opinion has to be in good faith and not a mere pretence. For the purpose of section 132 of the Act, there has to be a rational connection between the information or material and the belief about undisclosed income which has not been and is not likely to be disclosed by the person concerned. A bare intimation by the police or for that matter by any person, without something more, cannot be considered sufficient for action under section 132 of the Act, for it would be giving naked powers to the authorities to order search against any person and is prone to be abused. This cannot be permitted in a society governed by the rule of law." In Vindhya Metal Corporation v. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 233 (All), it was observed, at page 239, that: "It is settled that the existence or otherwise of the condition precedent to exercise of power under these provisions is open to judicial scrutiny. The absence of the condition precedent would naturally have the effect of vitiating the authorisation made by the Commissioner in either of the two provisions and the proceedings consequent thereto. While the sufficiency or otherwise of the information cannot be examin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ow falls for consideration, is as to whether the books of account and the documents belonging to the petitioner could be retained by the authorised officer/Assessing Officer. Sub-section (9A) of section 132 mandates that where the authorised officer has no jurisdiction over the person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (1), the books of account or other documents or assets seized under that sub-section shall be handed over-by the authorised officer to the Income-tax Officer having jurisdiction over such person within a period of 15 days and thereupon, the powers exercisable by the authorised officer under sub-section (8) or sub-section (9) shall be exercisable by such Income-tax Officer. In the instant case, the petitioner was being assessed at Panipat. The authorising officer, therefore, ought to have complied with the provisions of the said statute. The submission of Mr. Khanna, however, is that the Madras High Court in K.V. Krishnaswamy Naidu and Co. v. CIT [1987] 166 ITR 244 has held that the said provision is for the benefit of the Revenue to enable an Assessing Officer to pass order under section 132(5) within the statutory period but as t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... within 15 days, within reasonable time there after. In CIT v. Oriental Rubber Works [1984] 145 ITR 477 (SC), it has been held: "On a plain reading of the aforesaid provisions it will be clear that ordinarily the books of account or other documents that may be seized under an authorisation issued under sub-section (1) of section 132 can be retained by the authorised officer or the concerned Income-tax Officer for a period of one hundred and eighty days from the date of seizure, whereafter the person from whose custody such books or documents have been seized or the person to whom such books or documents belong becomes entitled to the return of the same, unless the reasons for any extended retention are recorded in writing by the authorised officer/the concerned Income-tax Officer and approval of the Commissioner for such retention is obtained. In other words, two conditions must be fulfilled before such extended retention becomes permissible in law: (a) reasons in writing must be recorded by the authorised officer or the con cerned Income-tax Officer seeking the Commissioner's approval, and (b) obtaining of the Commissioner's approval for such extended retention and if either....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Commissioner that might have been accorded from time to time." In CIT v. K.V. Krishnaswamy Naidu and Co. [2001] 249 ITR 794 (SC), it has been held: "Having heard counsel for the parties and in view of the provisions of sub-section (9A) of section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, we are in agreement with the judgment of the High Court (reported as [1987] 166 ITR 244) that the Assistant Director of Inspection, who was the authorised officer for the purposes of carrying out search and seizure but was not the Income-tax Officer who could pass an order under sub-section (5) of section 132 could not retain the seized documents, etc., beyond 15 days and, therefore, he could not moot a proposal under sub-section (8) for further retention of the documents beyond 180 days." In Thanthi Trust v. CIT [1987] 167 ITR 397, this court has observed: "It is clear from this judgment that the Supreme Court has spelt out the conditions which must be fulfilled before the extended retention of books or documents seized in a search conducted under section 132 of the Act becomes permissible in law. One of the conditions precedent mentioned in the aforesaid decision is that the reasons in wr....