V. RAMASWAMI J.

This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the Commissioner of Income-tax in his proceedings in Case No. 1436(9) 85-86/ CBE, dated May 24, 1985, and to quash the same. That was an order under section 132(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act ", and that reads as follows" The account books and other documents, (i) as per annexure 'SS '-22 items to the panchanama dated November 28, 1984, (ii) as per annexures SSK-S and S/SSK/SR to the panchanama dated November 29, 1984, (iii) documents listed in the panchanama dated November 28, 1984, prepared in Ooty office, were seized under section 132(8) from the above assessee on November 28, 1984, and November 29, 1984. It is necessary to retain the account books and other documents in the ADI's custody for the following reasons.

For further investigation.

I, therefore, approve the ADI's proposal to retain the account books and other documents for a further period up to December 31, 1985.

"The ADI referred to therein is a reference to the Assistant Director of Inspection.

The petitioner is a firm of income-tax practitioners at Coimbatore. The firm consists of two partners. The Assistant Director of Inspection (Intelligence), the second respondent in the writ petition, who was authorised by the Director of Inspection with reference to the provisions of section 132(1)(c) of the Act conducted a search in the head office and the branch office of the firm and also the residential premises of both the partners on November 28, 29, 1984. The authorities had seized a sum of Rs. 40, 000 in cash and some items of jewellery along with certain documents from the residence of one of the partners. It is contended by learned counsel that no undisclosed money, bullion or jewellery, nor any incriminating material were seized from the office premises of the firm, though learned counsel admits that some of the records and account books of the firm were seized from those offices. It is further stated that even with reference to the cash and jewellery seized from the premises of one of the partners, they had already given correct details of their source to substantiate the presence of such articles and documents. It is seen from the order of the Income-tax Officer made under section 132(5) of the Act that a notice under section 132(5) read with rule 112A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, was issued to the petitioner on December 10, 1984, and the assessee filed his reply to the notice on December 26, 1984. There was also a subsequent representation dated April 25, 1985. It may be mentioned that ultimately the order made under section 132(5) of the Act was against only one of the partners, and the finding is that the seized money and jewellery represented the unaccounted income of one of the individual partners and it was not referable to the income of the firm as such. The petitioner had requested for the return of the documents seized from the head office and the branch office of the firm, firstly, on the ground that the Director of Inspection had no locus standi over the seized items and, secondly, on the ground that there were absolutely no grounds for retaining the documents after an order under section 132(5) of the Act has been made. In the meantime, it appears that on May 22, 1985, the Assistant Director of Inspection made a request to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Coimbatore, for approval for retention of the documents seized from the petitioner firm for the period beyond 180 days from the date of seizure. That request was complied with in the impugned order dated May 24, 1985. It is at this stage that the petitioner had filed the above writ petition questioning the authority of the Assistant Director of Inspection in retaining the documents without handing over the same to the petitioner and also questioning the jurisdiction of the Commissioner in extending the peri