1990 (4) TMI 49

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....987. The same was challenged in appeal, but the appeal was dismissed on January 5, 1988. A second appeal was filed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (respondent No. 1). The petitioner also filed applications for adducing additional evidence. Vide an order dated August 30, 1988, the said appeal was, how ever, dismissed. We are informed that an application under section 256(1) has been filed pursuant to the said order dated August 30, 1988. The petitioner then filed an application under section 254(2) for recalling or rectifying the order dated August 30, 1988. Vide an order dated February 2, 1989, this application was rejected. Another miscellaneous application under section 254(2) was filed on March 13, 1989, and this was dismissed by an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he other contention which is raised in this petition is that the books of account and other documents which were seized by the respondents pursuant to the raid which was conducted under section 132 of the Act on July 23, 1985, have not yet been returned. The contention of the petitioner is that no notice was ever served on the petitioner to the effect that any order under section 132(2) had been passed for continued retention of the books ; nor were any reasons communicated. Mr. Rajendra has placed before us a copy of the letter dated April 23, 1990, informing the petitioner that an order dated December 19, 1989, had been passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax for continued retention of the books. It is further stated in this letter th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... said order has been passed. Furthermore, this order should be communicated to the petitioner within a reasonable time and as expeditiously as possible so as to enable the assessee to exercise his right under section 132(10). In view of the fact that there has been a failure on the part of the respondents in informing the petitioner, within a reasonable time, of the passing of the orders under section 132(8) and, furthermore, because no reasons have been communicated to the petitioner, the continued retention of the books of account and the other documents is, in our opinion, not warranted. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this writ petition. We quash the orders dated February 2, 1989, and March 29, 1989, and issue a writ of mandam....