1990 (2) TMI 32

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rd learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel for the respondents. The first contention raised by learned counsel was that the retention of the books of account seized by the Department beyond 180 days was manifestly illegal inasmuch as the requisite prior permission for retaining the books of account beyond 180 days as contemplated under sub-section (8) of section 132 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ond contention of learned counsel was based on a decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Oriental Rubber Works [1984] 145 ITR 477, that communication of the sanction by the competent authority to the assessee was mandatory and that the same was not proved. Here again, we find total absence of any such assertion, namely, that the sanction was not duly communicated to the petitioner. The fact that t....