JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J.
1. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel for the respondents. The first contention raised by learned counsel was that the retention of the books of account seized by the Department beyond 180 days was manifestly illegal inasmuch as the requisite prior permission for retaining the books of account beyond 180 days as contemplated under Sub-section (8) of Section 132 of the Income-tax Act had not been obtained.
2. The contention cannot be accepted as the facts necessary for sustaining that plea have not been asserted in the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to paragraph 10 of the petition. We have examined paragraph 10 of the petition but do not, find any assertion to the effect that factually the sanction of the Commissioner of Income-tax had not been obtained within 180 days. Indeed, paragraph 10 consists only of legal submissions rather than any positive assertion of fact. On the contrary, paragraph 15 of the counter-affidavit amply establishes that the requisite prior permission for retaining the books beyond 180 days had been duly accorded within time. We, therefore, find no substance in the first contention.
3. The second contention of learned counsel was based on a decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Oriental Rubber Works [1984] 145 ITR 477, that communication of the sanction by the competent authority to the assessee was mandatory and that the same was not proved. Here again, we find total absence of any such assertion, namely, that the sanction was not duly communicated to the petitioner. The fact that the sanction was duly communicated to the petitioner is fully borne out by the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax granting sanction under Sub-section (8) of Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, a copy whereof has been annexed to the counter-affidavit. Under the signature of the Commissioner of Income-tax dated June 2, 1986, we find an endorsement which confirms that a copy of the order had been despatched to the Income-tax Officer as well as the assessee. The details of the despatch are given therein. There is thus no merit in the second contention too.
4. There is thus no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.