Petitioner is a reputed Homoeo doctor with a homoeo clinic at Kottayam and is an assessee under the Income-tax Act being assessed by the second respondent. A search conducted by the first respondent in the residence and clinic of the petitioner at Kottayam on 30.12.1994 led to seizure of cash around Rs.6 lakhs. Indira Vikas Patras (IVP) for Rs. 6 lakhs and promissory note for the value of Rs.3 lakhs. Consequent on certain date collected during search in the petitioners premises the first respondent arranged search through his counter-parts in Baroda in the residence of two sons of the petitioner, namely, Indravadan R. Patel, and Jawaharlal patel on 4.1.1995, which led t6o seizure of IVPs of the value of Rs.66.7 lakhs and Rs.2.46 lakhs respectively. However, in view of admission by the petitioner and his sons in the course of search the IVPs seized from the petitioner’s sons were also treated as undeclared income of the petitioner and proceeded with. In fact, in the course of search, petitioner made a total disclosure of Rs.1,46,78,980/- for the financial years 1989-90 to 1994-95 under Section 132 (4) of the Income-tax Act. After conclusion of search, the first respondent issued Ext.P1 proceedings on 28.4.1995 under the then existing Section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act estimating the income tax thereon, interest and penalty for the purpose of retaining the seized assets for appropriation after determination of liability. Since after search, there was still time to remit the 1st installment of advance tax for the assessment year 1995-96, the petitioner after referring to his statement furnished under Section 132(4) on 4.1.1995 declared an income of Rs.66,86,800/- for the said assessment year and requested the second respondent to appropriate from the seized cash and IVPs, Rs.26,74,720/ towards advance tax vide Ext. R3(A) letter dated 13.3.1995. Petitioner maintained that the entire seizures are income relevant for the assessment year 1995-96 and based on the same he filed a return on 13.7.1995 declaring a net income of Rs.68,86,800/- which is consistent with his earlier letter Ext. R3 (A). Thereafter the petitioner filed a revised return for the very same assessment year, that is, 1995-96 stated to be on 15.12.1995 declaring an income of Rs.75 lakhs as against Rs.68,86,800/- earlier returned. After adjusting the seized cash retained by the department, respondents 1 and 2 encashed the IVPs as and when those deposits matured and adjusted the said amount also towards petitioner’s tax liability for the assessment year 1995-96 and credited some amount towards tax for the assessment year 1994-95. While, according to the petitioner, the encashment of IVPs and adjustment towards tax liability by the department is unauthorized, the position canvassed by the second respondent is that encashment of IVPs and adjustment towards tax liability are strictly in terms of specific authorization given by the petitioner vide Ext.R3(A) and subsequent communications. The income-tax assessments of the petitioner for all the relevant assessment years, namely, 1990-91 to 1995-96, were completed vide Ext.P4 series of orders. While the assessments for the years 1990-91 to 1994-95 were completed on 23.12.1997 as income escaping assessments under Section 147, the regular assessment for the year 1995-96 was completed on 17.11.1997. It is seen from the assessment orders, namely Ext.P4 series issued that the retained cash and value of IVPs encashed until then were credited and adjusted towards tax liability for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96. The petitioner has stated in this Court that assessments are contested and appeals are pending. However, this O.P. is filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P5 whereunder the Commissioner of Income-tax has granted limited benefit for 1990-91 to 1993-94 and completely denied benefit for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96 on petitioner’s applications filed under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 19