TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (9) TMI 56
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o authority to retain them under the provisions of section 132(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (referred to as "the Act" hereafter). Section 132(8) reads : "(8) The books of account or other documents seized under subsection (1) or sub-section (1A) shall not be retained by the authorised officer for a period exceeding one hundred and eighty days from the date of the seizure unless the reasons for retaining the same are recorded by him in writing and the approval of the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner for such retention is obtained : Provided that the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner shall not authorise the retention of the books of account and other documents for a period exceeding thirty days after all the proceedings under th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tted till June 30, 1983. The Commissioner's order dated June 15, 1982, was served on the petitioner on June 18, 1982. It is said by the respondents that by subsequent orders dated June 23, 1983, June 21, 1984, and June 18, 1985, the Commissioner had extended the period for the retention of the documents under section 132(8) of the Act till March 31, 1987, and on all occasions the orders had been communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition had been filed on December 10, 1985. It is, therefore, submitted that the retention of the books, documents, etc., was lawful. The submission of the respondents even on the admitted facts is unacceptable. As has been already noted, it was incumbent on the respondents not only to serve the petit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt No. 1 had pledged his oath to the service. Therefore, the question was a disputed one. Secondly, it was said that the petitioner should be relegated to the remedy available to him under section 132(10) of the Act. Thirdly, it was contended that the respondents were entitled to the benefit of the presumption under section 114(e) of the Evidence Act particularly when the first and second orders of the Commissioner had been admittedly served and the last order referred to the earlier order of approval. It is urged that the silence of the petitioner for several years after receipt of the first order of the Commissioner was in keeping with the respondents' case that the orders had in fact been communicated to him. Finally it is conte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t a matter in respect of which an application could have been made to the Board, and the remedy under section 132(10) cannot be considered to be an alternative remedy at all. As far as the third contention of the respondents is concerned, the presumption under section 114(e) of the Evidence Act, namely, that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed does not extend to a situation where the performance of the act itself is in question and not the regularity of the act (see Rasiklal Amritlal Doshi v. A. Nundy, Addl. ITO [1961] 42 ITR 35 (Bom)). Even assuming that a presumption could be raised under section 114(e) of the Evidence Act, it is well-established that such a presumption is a rebuttable one. There is sufficient posi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e application is accordingly allowed and the respondents are directed to return the seized documents, books, etc., to the petitioner within one week from the date of service of the operative portion of this judgment upon them. The Special Officer will stand discharged after handing over the share scrips in his custody to the petitioner also within such period. There will be no order as to costs. All parties concerned are to act on a signed copy of the operative part of this judgment on the usual undertaking. September 14, 1993 : It appears that subsequent to the order dated February 6, 1986, an order was passed on February 20, 1986, by Khastgir J., as His Lordship then was, correcting the order dated February 6, 1986, by directing ....