MOHAN MAGOTRA Vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein invokes the assistance of S. 132(8) of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act'). It is submitted that the account books maintained by the petitioner-assessee were taken possession of by the assessing authority on 7th April, 1995. It is said that in terms of section referred to above, these books of account and the records could be retained by the assessing authority for a period of 180 days. It is further submitted that if these are to be retained beyond that period, then the approval of the higher authorities named in S. 132(8) is supposed to be obtained. It is stated that not only approval has to be obtained, but the reasons for this retention are supposed to be mentioned and these reasons are supposed to be conveyed to the assessee. According to the petitioner, the assessee was not made aware of the fact that the approval has been obtained. In this situation, it is submitted that the question of reasons being made available to the petitioner, does not arise.

(2.) THE respondents have, however, controverted the allegations. It is submitted that the approval of the Addl. CIT, Investigation Circle, Jammu, was obtained. The first approval was obtained on 13th Sept., 1996. It was again obtained on 17th Oct., 1996, 11th June, 1997, 23rd June, 1998, 15th June, 1999 and 21st June, 2000. It is submitted that these records are being retained because these are required by the higher hierarchy who are to examine the orders passed by the assessing authority.

(3.) SO far as the legal position is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Oriental Rubber Works (1984) 38 CTR (SC) 154 : TC 62R.172. In this decision, the Supreme Court has observed that reasons for retaining the records are to be reduced into writing. This has to be done by the authorised officer. The approval is to be sought. Thereafter, the approval as also the reasons for retention are supposed to be conveyed to the assessee. Similar view has again been expressed in a number of decisions. They are as under :