Judgment N.N. Mathur, J.-The D. B. Income-tax References Nos. 59 of 1998,31 of 1999,93 of 1999 and 27 of 1999 and S. B. Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 2723 of 1997 and 1070 of 1997 are disposed of by the common order as they arise out of the survey under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, conducted on November 25, 1994, at the premises of the assesses, Mool Chand Salecha, impounding all the books of account, ex parte assessment order dated February 24, 1995, and the ultimate order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated March 12, 1996. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee, Mool Chand Salecha, deals in cloth dyeing and trading business. He has been filing returns in his individual capacity showing share income from Praveen Cotton Mills, Jasol and as karta of a Hindu undivided family (in short the HUF”), Mool Chand Praveen Kumar and as partner of Parmeshwari Textile Mill, Jasol. As no return for the assessment year 1994-95 was filed, a survey under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act of 1961”), was conducted at the premises of Praveen Cotton Mills and Parmeshwari Textiles Mills, Jasol, on November 25, 1994. During the survey operation, the assessee, Mool Chand Salecha, disclosed in his statement that he was drawing a salary of Rs. 30,000 per annum from Praveen Cotton Mills and was also partner of Parmeshwari Textile Mills, Jasol, in his Hindu undivided family capacity. The tax authorities also recovered the account books of three concerns, viz., Sumit Textile Mills, Sabarmati Mills India and Arvind Padding Works, for the assessment year 1995-96. With respect to the said firms, the assessee, Mool Chand, admitted that all the three concerns were owned by him and the capital introduced in the three concerns was from his undisclosed income in the form of deposits in the books of account in various names. Accordingly, he offered to surrender the income of rupees five lakhs and rupees six lakhs for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96, respectively as capital introduced in the three concerns out of his undisclosed income. Accordingly, he offered to surrender the income of rupees five lakhs and rupees six lakhs for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96, respectively as capital introduced in the three concerns out of his undisclosed income. He also admitted that he did not raise any loan from anybody and all cash deposits appearing in his account books in different names, represented his undisclosed capital and are included in the surrendered capital of rupees ten lakhs for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96 in the three concerns. He also admitted that the account books of all the three concerns are written in his own handwriting or in the handwriting of his Muneem Rajesh and Siremal. Regarding the bank accounts, he stated that Smt. Babita Surendera Kumar was authorised by him to operate the bank account of Sumit Textile Mills and Smt. Damyanti Lalit Kumar to operate the bank account of Sabarmati Mills. He further stated that as his business was mainly at Ahmedabad, he resided there with other family members. Regarding the sale of the said three concerns, he admitted that the sales were to the tune of Rs. 70 lakhs approximately in the assessment year 1994-95. He also admitted that the accounts were not got audited under Section 44AB. In the facts of the case, the income-tax authorities issued a summons under Section 13 1(1) to the assessee on November 25, 1994, to produce the account books found at the time of survey, which were subsequently produced and impounded under Section 13 1(3) of the Act of 1961. The examination of the account books revealed that the said concerns were in existence prior to the assessment year 1994-95 also. For production of the remaining books of account and account books of earlier years, summonses under Section 13 1(1) were issued to the assessee on December 6, 1994, but no compliance was made by the assessee. In view of the fact of non-production of account books of earlier years, enquiries were conducted from Barmer Central Co-operative Bank, Jasol. The copy of the account opening form and copies of bank accounts since the beginning in respect of the three concerns were also called for. In view of the fact of non-production of account books of earlier years, enquiries were conducted from Barmer Central Co-operative Bank, Jasol. The copy of the account opening form and copies of bank accounts since the beginning in respect of the three concerns were also called for. The Barmer Central Co-operative Bank, Jasol, under communication dated December 30, 1994, intimated that all the concerns were the proprietary concerns of Smt. Damyanti, Ganpatlal and Surendera Kumar and the accounts were in operation since February 5, 1988, April 26, 1991 and December 19, 1991, respectively. It further revealed that all the three accounts were introduced to the bank by the assessee, Mool Chand, himself It further revealed that though the cheques of three accounts were signed by Smt. Damyanti, Shri Surendera Kumar and Shri Ganpat Lal for Sabarmati Mills India, Sumit Textile Mills and Arvind Padding Works, respectively, the withdrawals of cheques of”self’ were made mostly by the munim of the assessee, Mool Chand, viz., Siremal and Rajesh Kumar. Summonses under Section 131 were issued to Shri Surendera Kumar, Smt. Damyanti Devi and Shri Ganpatlal on February 9, 1995. Surendra Kumar and Smt. Damyanti did not make compliance but Ganpatlal attended on February 10, 1995, and his statement was recorded on oath. He stated that he was doing job work of washing grey cloths on small scale in the name of Arvind Padding Works with the initial investment of Rs. 2,000 taken as loan from his brother-in-law, Shri Mohanlal. He denies to have maintained books of account. When he was confronted with the account books of Arvind Padding Works, he denied to be the owner of such books and stated that as these account books have been found from the premises of Shri Mool Chand, he can only speak about the maintenance and transactions recorded in the said books. He, however, admitted that the bank account in his name was introduced by Mool Chand and he has been doing petty job work of various firms of the assessee, Mool Chand, and his family members. On appreciation of these facts, the assessing authority concluded that the assessee, Mool Chand, was the actual owner of the said three concerns and Shri Surendra Kumar, Smt. Damyanti and Ganpatlal were the only benamidars of Mool Chand. On appreciation of these facts, the assessing authority concluded that the assessee, Mool Chand, was the actual owner of the said three concerns and Shri Surendra Kumar, Smt. Damyanti and Ganpatlal were the only benamidars of Mool Chand. Accordingly, he issued a notice under Section 142(1) to the assessee, Mool Chand, and his family members calling upon them to file the return of their income on or before November 30, 1994. After a great hassle, Mool Chand filed a return on February 14, 1995, showing his income of Rs. 57,480 for the assessment year 1994-95 including income of Rs. 14,065 from Sumit Textile Mills and Rs. 2,124 from Sabarmati Mills India. The assessing authority found that the sales of Sumit Textile Mills and Sabarmati Mills for the assessment year 1994-95 were for Rs. 3,06,45,038. Obviously, these sales were not possible with a meagre investment of rupees four lakhs surrendered in the two concerns for the assessment year 1994-95. Further for a turnover of Rs. 3.6 crores, at least a capital of rupees fifty lakhs was required. 3. The assessee was given show-cause notice as to why a sum of rupees fifty lakhs may not be treated as capital from the undisclosed sources on estimate basis. Because of non co-operation of the assessee, Mool Chand, the assessing authority was compelled to proceed under Section 144. The assessing authority concluded that the assessee had owned the ownership of three concerns and he was the real owner of all the three concerns. The assessee made a request not to proceed with the proceedings as he had filed an application before the Settlement Commission on February 16, 1995. The request was turned down on the ground that simply filing of application before the Settlement Commission, was not sufficient and the proceedings could not be stayed unless the application was admitted by the Commission. The assessing authority expressed that the assessee was intentionally avoiding the assessment proceedings, hence, he proceeded ex parte with the assessment. The assessing authority computed the income of the assessee, Mool Chand, as follows: “(8) After discussion income of the assessee is computed as under: (i) Net salary income from Praveen Cotton Mills 16,667.00 (ii) Income from interest etc. The assessing authority expressed that the assessee was intentionally avoiding the assessment proceedings, hence, he proceeded ex parte with the assessment. The assessing authority computed the income of the assessee, Mool Chand, as follows: “(8) After discussion income of the assessee is computed as under: (i) Net salary income from Praveen Cotton Mills 16,667.00 (ii) Income from interest etc. 18,723.00 (iii) Net income of minors Add-11,326.00 .(iv) Capital investment in Sabarmati Mills India and Sumit Textile Mills out of undisclosed sources as discussed above 51,00,00.00 .(v)Capital investment in Arvind Padding Works as Surrendered by the assessee 1,00,000.00 .(vi)Bogus liabilities as discussed above (Rs. 10,11,944+2,00,781) 12,12,725.00 (vii)Estimation of income from Sumit Textiles and Sabarmati Mills India Jasol as discussed above 4,59,675.00 (viii)Estimation of income from Arvind Padding Works as discussed above 50,000.00 TOTAL INCOME RS. 69,69,116.00 Less - Deduction under Sec. 80 L Rs. 5,427.00 NET TAXABLE INCOME Rs. 69,63,689.00 Thus, the Income-tax Officer, Balotra, Computed Rs. 69,63,689 as taxable income. He also directed to issue penalty notices under Sections 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) and 271B of the ACt. The Department raised a tax demand of Rs. 40,16,480. An appeal was preferred against the order of assessment dated February 24, 1995, before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Jodhpur. The Commissioner rejected the contention with respect to the denial of opportunity of hearing. It was held that the assessee did not avail of the opportunity given and indulged in delaying tactics. He also held that in spite of the fact that the request of the appellant was accepted for inspection of record, he did not choose to avail of the same, though he inspected the documents on a few dates. He was of the view that the appellant-assessee was trying to put obstacles in the way of smooth investigation by resorting to various dilatory tactics. It was also found that the return filed by the appellant did not reflect the true state of affairs. He did not comply with the notice under Section 142(1) and, therefore, the assessing authority rightly proceeded under Section 144. He even went to the extent of observing that the assessing authority was too liberal. Looking to the attitude of the assessee in his opinion, it was a fit case to impose penalty for not responding to the repeated summonses issued. Accordingly, the Appellate Commissioner rejected the appeal by order dated March 27, 1995. 4. He even went to the extent of observing that the assessing authority was too liberal. Looking to the attitude of the assessee in his opinion, it was a fit case to impose penalty for not responding to the repeated summonses issued. Accordingly, the Appellate Commissioner rejected the appeal by order dated March 27, 1995. 4. It was contended before the learned Tribunal on behalf of the assessee that the assessing authority in undue haste committed severe irregularities in the survey as well as assessment proceedings. It was submitted that the assessing authority while exercising the powers under Section 133A, had no power to impound the books of account in view of the clear prohibition provided under Sub-section (4) of Section 133A. It was also contended that the assessee had a right to submit the belated return under Section 139(4) and under Section 153 up to March 31, 1995. The Assessing Officer had time up to March 31, 1996, to complete the assessment. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer committed an error in not taking into consideration the return filed by the assessee on February 14, 1995. According to learned counsel by issuing notice under Section 133(1), the Assessing Officer curtailed the statutory period of submitting return to the assessee. It was also argued that in all fairness, the Assessing Officer should not have proceeded with the assessment proceedings, once it was brought to his notice that the settlement application was submitted under Section 245C with the Settlement Commission on February 16, 1995. He also criticised the summary way of dealing by the Assessing Officer as well as the appellate authority with respect to the additions. It was argued that the assessee was denied the opportunity of hearing by refusing to supply the incriminating documents which were illegally seized and impounded during the survey. It was also argued that if the accounts lying with the Department were voluminous or complicated, the Assessing Officer had a power under Section 142A to get the accounts audited and could have then determined the income instead of doing so arbitrarily. It was thus urged that the assessment made under Section 144 may be annulled or set aside with the direction to make assessment de novo. It was thus urged that the assessment made under Section 144 may be annulled or set aside with the direction to make assessment de novo. On the other hand, it was submitted by the departmental representative that all the three proprietary concerns had a turnover exceeding rupees forty lakhs, yet the books of account were not got audited by the assessee in accordance with the mandatory provisions of Section 44AB. It was also submitted that no returns were filed with respect to the income arising from the said three concerns. It was also argued that nothing more was required to be done, as the assessee himself had surrendered rupees eleven lakhs at the time of survey. With respect to denying of opportunity of hearing to represent the case fully during the assessment proceedings, it was submitted that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, particularly looking to the gross tax evasion by the assesses, the Assessing Officer had no other option but to pin him down by invoking the provisions of Section 144. As regards the settlement application, it was submitted that the proceedings could not have been stayed simply because the application for settlement was filed before the Commission. The findings of the learned Tribunal are summarised as follows: .(i) Thepowers of survey under Section 133A are different and distinct than the powers under Section 13 1(1). If the Assessing Officer suspected that the assessee had either concealed or was likely to conceal the particulars of his income, the Assessing Officer could have issued summons under Section 131(1A) but while exercising powers under Section 133A, he could not have usurped the powers under Section 13 1(1). .(ii) It was within the powers of the Assessing Officer to require the assessee to furnish a return by issuing a notice under Section 142(1), once the assessee had failed to furnish the same by due date mentioned in Section 139(1). The assessee had furnished a return on February 14, 1995, and as such, the Assessing Officer was bound to consider the said return. It was further held that the assessee had a right to file the belated return under Section 139(4) and having so filed, it was obligatory for the Assessing Officer to consider the same. The assessee had furnished a return on February 14, 1995, and as such, the Assessing Officer was bound to consider the said return. It was further held that the assessee had a right to file the belated return under Section 139(4) and having so filed, it was obligatory for the Assessing Officer to consider the same. The Assessing Officer was wrong in not considering the request of the assessee as contained in letter dated December 7, 1994, for inspection as well as supply of the photostat copies of the account books. The assessee on receipt of the notice under Section 142(1), dated December 15, 1994, reiterated the request of supplying the copies of accounts but the same was rejected arbitrarily. The Assessing Officer made up his mind to frame assessment under Section 144 before passing the order of assessment. (iii) The Assessing Officer illegally impounded the books of account. In view of the findings, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to release the entire impounded books of account to the assessee within a period of fifteen days from the receipt of the order. A further direction was given to make a fresh assessment after affording the adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 5. The Department submitted an application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, before the Tribunal proposing the following questions for referring to this Court for its opinion: “(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in entertaining the ground relating to impounding of the books of account under Section 131 in respect of an appeal filed against the order passed under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ground relating to impounding of the books of account would be considered to be a subject-matter of appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in view of the provisions of Section 246(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in deciding the same and directing the release of the impounded books of account to the assessee? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in its interpretation of Sections 131 and 13 3A for releasing of the impounded books of account? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in its interpretation of Sections 131 and 13 3A for releasing of the impounded books of account? (iv) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in setting aside the assessment without considering the material on record and in not deciding the appeal on merits on the basis of the same ?“ The Tribunal refused to refer the first two questions in view of the settled position of law and the decision of the apex Court reported in Kapurchand Shrimal vs. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 451. The fourth question was also declined on the ground that the finding of the Tribunal in not giving sufficient opportunity of hearing is a finding of fact and, as such, no referable question of law arises from this order. The Tribunal, however, referred question No. 3. The Tribunal after stating the statement of case and framing the aforesaid question of law, has referred it to this Court for its opinion. The reference has been registered as D. B. Income-tax Reference No. 59 of 1998. The Commissioner of Income-tax has also filed an application under Section 25 6(2) seeking direction against the Tribunal to refer questions Nos. 1, 3 and 4 for the opinion of this Court. This reference has been registered as D. B. Income-tax Reference No. 31 of 1999. The assessee, Mool Chand, has also filed a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, which has been registered as S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2723 of 1997 seeking direction to the Assessing Officer to comply with the directions of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated March 12, 1996, particularly the directions of releasing the books of account. The Department has also filed a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution seeking direction to quash the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated March 12, 1996, particularly the directions to release the impounded documents. A further direction has been sought to restrain the first respondent from taking any proceeding coercive or otherwise for enforcing the order of release of documents particularly in view of the fact that the settlement application before the Settlement Commission has been admitted. 6. A further direction has been sought to restrain the first respondent from taking any proceeding coercive or otherwise for enforcing the order of release of documents particularly in view of the fact that the settlement application before the Settlement Commission has been admitted. 6. As the sunm-ionses issued under Section 131 on December 6, 1994, December 16, 1994, December 28, 1994 and January 6, 1995, were not complied with, the Assessing Officer made a reference to Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax for imposition of the penalty under Section 272A(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The Deputy Commissioner inflicted a penalty of Rs. 10,000, for each default, in total Rs. 40,000 by order date June 23, 1995. The appeal preferred by the assessee was dismissed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by order dated October 13, 1995. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal cancelled the penalty levied under Section 272A(1)(c) by order dated December 29, 1997. The Department filed an application for reference under Section 25 6(1) of the Income-tax Act asking the Tribunal to refer the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court: “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in cancelling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act on the sole ground that the order of assessment has been set aside to be made afresh in appeal? Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in cancelling the penalty levied under Section 221 of the Act? Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in cancelling the penalty levied under Section 272A(1)(c) of the Act on the sole ground that the order of assessment has been set aside to be made afresh in appeal? Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in cancelling the penalty levied under Section 271B of the Act ?“ This application has been rejected by the order of the Tribunal dated May 29, 1998. The Department has filed a reference application under Section 256(2) for directing the respondent-Tribunal to refer the aforesaid questions of law for the opinion of this Court, which has been registered as D. B. Income-tax Reference No. 27 of 1999. 7. The Department has filed a reference application under Section 256(2) for directing the respondent-Tribunal to refer the aforesaid questions of law for the opinion of this Court, which has been registered as D. B. Income-tax Reference No. 27 of 1999. 7. It is made clear that all the said income-tax references are still at the admission stage. The writ petitions filed before the learned single judge have been placed before the Division Bench for hearing with the aforesaid income-tax references. 8. The first question which arises for consideration is whether while conducting survey under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act, the income-tax authority has power to impound or take into his possession the account books or documents? 9. In order to answer the question posed, it will be desirable to set out some of the relevant provisions of Chapter XIII of the Act, which deals with the different powers specified in different sections. Briefly stated Section 131 deals with the power regarding discovery, production of evidence, etc; Section 132 deals with search and seizure ; Section 132A deals with the powers to requisition books of account, etc ; Section 1 32B provides for application of assets retained under Section 132(5); Section 133 confers the power to call for information; Section 133A deals with power of survey; Section 133B deals with the power to collect certain information; Section 134 deals with the power to inspect registers of companies; Section 135 deals with the power of the Director-General or Director, the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner and the Joint Commissioner; and Section 136 declares the proceedings before income-tax authorities as judicial proceedings. 10. Inthe instant case, since the controversy pertains to power of survey, it is necessary to set out Section 133A. However, the question posed cannot be answered properly unless Section 131 is also read along with Section 133A. Thus, for convenience, Sections 131 and 133A are set out as follows: “131. 10. Inthe instant case, since the controversy pertains to power of survey, it is necessary to set out Section 133A. However, the question posed cannot be answered properly unless Section 131 is also read along with Section 133A. Thus, for convenience, Sections 131 and 133A are set out as follows: “131. Power regarding discovery, production of evidence, etc.--( 1) The Assessing Officer, Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Joint Commissioner, Commissioner (Appeals) and Chief Commissioner or Commissioner shall, for the purposes of this Act, have the same powers as are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), when trying a suit in respect of , the following matters, namely: -- (a) discovery and inspection; (b) enforcing the attendance of any person, including any officer of a banking company and examining him on oath; .(c) compelling the production of books of account and other documents ; and .(d) issuing commissions. (1A) If the Director General or Director or Joint Director or Assistant Director or Deputy Director, or the authorised officer referred to in subsection (1) of Section 132 before he takes action under Clauses (i) to (v) of that sub-section, has reason to suspect that any income has been concealed, or is likely to be concealed, by any person or class of persons, within his jurisdiction, then, for the purposes of making any inquiry or investigation relating thereto, it shall be competent for him to exercise the powers conferred under Sub-section (1) on the income-tax authorities referred to in that sub-section, notwithstanding that no proceedings with respect to such person or class of persons are pending before him or any other income-tax authority; (3) Subject to any rules made in this behalf , any authority referred to in Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (1A) may impound and retain in its custody for such period as it thinks fit any books of account or other documents produced before it in any proceeding under this Act: Provided that an Assessing Officer or an Assistant Director or Deputy Director shall not-- .(a) impound any books of account or other documents without recording his reasons for so doing, or .(b) retain in his custody any such books or documents for a period exceeding fifteen days (exclusive of holidays) without obtaining the approval of the Chief Commissioner or Director General or Commissioner or Director therefor, as the case may be.” “133A. Power of survey.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, an income-tax authority may enter- .(a) any place within the limits of the area assigned to him, or .(b) any place occupied by any person in respect of whom he exercises jurisdiction, or .(c) any place in respect of which he is authorised for the purposes of this section by such income-tax authority, who is assigned the area within which such place is situated or who exercises jurisdiction in respect to any person occupying such place, at which a business or profession is carried on, whether such place be the principal place or not of such business or profession, and require any proprietor, employee or any other person who may at that time and place be attending in any manner to, or helping in the carrying on of such business or profession- .(i) toafford him the necessary facility to inspect such books of account or other documents as he may require and which may be available at such place, .(ii) to afford him the necessary facility to check or verify the cash, stock or other valuable article or thing which may be found therein, and (iii) tofurnish such information as he may require as to any matter which may be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under this Act. Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section, a place where a business or profession is carried on shall also include any other place, whether any business or profession is carried on therein or not, in which the person carrying on the business or profession states that any of his books of account or other documents or any part of his cash or stock or other valuable article or thing relating to his business or profession are or is kept. (2) An income-tax authority may enter any place of business or profession referred to in Sub-section (1) only during the hours at which such place is open for the conduct of business or profession and, in the case of any other place, only after sunrise and before sunset. (2) An income-tax authority may enter any place of business or profession referred to in Sub-section (1) only during the hours at which such place is open for the conduct of business or profession and, in the case of any other place, only after sunrise and before sunset. (3) An income-tax authority acting under this section may, -- .(i) if he so deems necessary, place marks of identification on the books of account or other documents inspected by him and make or cause to be made extracts or copies therefrom, (ii) make an inventory of any cash, stock or other valuable article or thing checked or verified by him, (iii) record thestatement of any person which may be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under this Act. .(4) An income-tax authority acting under this section shall, on no account, remove or cause to be removed from the place wherein he has entered, any books of account or other documents or any cash, stock or other valuable article or thing. .(5) Where, having regard to the nature and scale of expenditure incurred by an assessee, in connection with any function, ceremony or event, the income-tax authority is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do, he may, at any time after such function, ceremony or event, require the assessee by whom such expenditure has been incurred or any person who, in the opinion of the income-tax authority, is likely to possess information as respects the expenditure incurred, to furnish such information as he may require as to any matter which may be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under this Act and may have the statements of the assessee or any other person recorded and any statement so recorded may thereafter be used in evidence in any proceeding under this Act. (6) If a person under this section is required to afford facility to the income-tax authority to inspect books of account or other documents or to check or verify any cash, stock or other valuable article or thing or to furnish any information or to have his statement recorded either refuses or evades to do so, the income-tax authority shall have all the powers under Sub-section (1) of Section 131 for enforcing compliance with the requirement made. Explanation.--In this section,-- .(a) ‘income-tax authority’ means a Commissioner, a Joint Commissioner, a Director, a Joint Director, an Assistant Director or Deputy Director or an Assessing Officer and for the purposes of Clause (i) of Sub-section (1), Clause (i) of Sub-section (3) and Sub-section (5), includes an Inspector of Income-tax, if so authorised by any such authority; .(b) ‘proceeding’means any proceeding under this Act in respect of any year which may be pending on the date on which the powers under this section are exercised or which may have been completed on or before such date and includes also all proceedings under this Act which may be commenced after such date in respect of any year.” 11. A perusal of Section 131 makes it apparent that the powers of the income-tax authorities concerned under the Section are co-extensive with those of a civil Court trying a suit and such power can be exercised only if a proceeding is pending before such authority. However, Section 131(1 A) is free from such fetter, which is an overriding provision. In a case, where there is a reason to suspect that any income has been concealed or is likely to be concealed by any person, even though no proceeding with respect to such person may be pending before him or any other income-tax authority, the officers concerned mentioned therein for the purpose of making any enquiry or investigation relating thereto, can exercise the powers conferred under Sub-section (1). Sub-section (3) empowers the Income-tax Officer to issue prohibitory orders on a person in control of books of account, documents, valuable article, etc., directing him not to remove, part with or otherwise deal with them without his permission, if he finds that it is not practicable to seize them. By a recent amendment, a proviso has been added prohibiting an Assessing Officer or Assistant Director or Deputy Director to impound any books of account or other documents without recording his reasons for doing so or to retain in his custody any such books of account for a period exceeding 15 days without obtaining the approval of the Chief Commissioner or Director Genera