B.N.KIRPAL, J. (1) HAVING heard the counsel for the parties and in view of the provisions of sub-section (9-A) of Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, we are in agreement with the judgment of the High Court reported as K.V. Krishnaswamy Naidu & Co. v. CIT that the Assistant Director of Inspection who was the authorised officer for the purposes of carrying out search and seizure but was not the Income Tax Officer who could pass an order under sub-section (5) of Section 132 could not retain the seized documents etc. beyond 15 days and, therefore, he could not moot a proposal under sub-section (8) for further retention of the documents beyond 180 days. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.