B.R. MADAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has sought issuance of direction to the respondents to release the share certificates of the petitioner illegally retained as a result of search and seizure operation of the "the Act").

(2.) MS . Radhika Suri, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the short affidavit filed by Shri G.S. Randhawa, the CIT -1, Chandigarh, now states that the retention of documents have been reconsidered and the same have been further states that the petition has been rendered infructuous. placing reliance on the provisions of s. 132(8) of the Act for retention of the valuable certificates belonging to the assessee -petitioner. It is not unreasonable to expect from an officer of the rank of CIT, who is the appellate authority under the Act, to know the provisions of the Act which are relevant for passing of impugned order. He pleaded before us absolutely an unreasonable and unwarranted justification for passing the impugned order which has now resulted into change of stand by Shri G.S. Randhawa. The aforesaid change is evident from the perusal of para 2 of his affidavit dt. "That it is humbly brought to the notice of this Hon'ble Court that in view of the law laid down in the matter of CIT vs. Mukundray Kumar Shah (2005) 199 CTR (Cal) 633 : (2005) 278 ITR 425 (Cal) by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, the retention of the documents has been reconsidered and the same have been released and personally handed over by the

(3.) IT thus becomes evident that the impugned order could not have withstood the judicial scrutiny.