Judgment Arindam Sinha, J. The petitioners are assessees having income chargeable to tax. It appears that warrants of authorization dated 19th, 21st and 31st August, 1998 were issued under Section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On 21st August, 1998 search and seizure of the office and residential premises of the petitioners were conducted. Articles including cash were seized. A copy of a Panchanama of that date is an annexure to the writ petition. Though the petitioners have challenged the said warrants of authorization, all proceedings of search, seizure and proceedings for retention of the articles, but Mr. R.N. Dutta, learned Advocate submitted at the time of hearing, the challenge of his clients’ was confined to the retention of the articles seized based on Section 132(9A) of the said Act as it stood then. The admitted position is the search and seizure conducted on 21st August, 1998 resulted in seizure of several articles as made pursuant to the concerned warrants of authorization by an authorized officer who did not have jurisdiction over the petitioners referred to in clauses (a), (b) or (c) of Section 132(1) of the said Act. In the circumstances the said authorized officer was required, under the law in force at that time, to handover the seized articles to the Income Tax Officer having jurisdiction over the petitioners within a period of 15 days of such seizure and thereupon the powers exercisable by the authorized officer under Section 132(8) or (9) would be exercisable by such Income Tax Officer. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit in opposition used by the Revenue it was stated the seizure took place on 21st August, 1998 and the search operation of the group was finally concluded on 31st August, 1998. The articles seized were finally handed over to the Assessing Officer by 25th September, 1998. Mr. Dutta laid emphasis on the articles seized by Panchanama dated 21st August, 1998 copy of which is annexure-E to the writ petition. He submitted that as on the date of seizure and till on or before 31st May, 2002, the law applicable to retention of seized articles and exercise of powers of the authorized officer by the Income-tax Officer having jurisdiction was as provided under Section 132(9A) which is reproduced below. He submitted that as on the date of seizure and till on or before 31st May, 2002, the law applicable to retention of seized articles and exercise of powers of the authorized officer by the Income-tax Officer having jurisdiction was as provided under Section 132(9A) which is reproduced below. [Section 132 (9A)-Where the authorised officer has no jurisdiction over the person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (1), the books of account or other documents or assets seized under that sub-section shall be handed over by the authorised officer to the Income-tax Officer having jurisdiction over such person within a period of fifteen days of such seizure and thereupon the powers exercisable by the authorised officer under sub-section (8) or sub-section (9) shall be exercisable by such Income-tax Officer]. Mr. Dutta relied upon the decision reported in 166 Income Tax Reports 244 (K.V. Krishnaswamy Naidu & Co. Vs. C.I.T. & Ors.) to submit retention of the seized articles beyond 5th September, 1998 was illegal and handing over the same to the Income Tax Officer having jurisdiction over the petitioners thereafter could not entitle the said officer to exercise powers under Section 132(8). He submitted the said Madras case was considered in appeal by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which by its order dated 22nd January, 1998 reported in 249 Income Tax Report 794 ( C.I.T. and Ors. Vs. K.V. Krishnaswamy Naidu & Co.) dismissed the appeal. So, Mr. Dutta relied upon the Madras case as a precedent to be applied to the case of the petitioners to submit that the subsequent handing over of the seized articles was bad pursuant to which there could not be exercise of powers by the Income Tax Officer having jurisdiction over the petitioners under Section 132 (8). The articles were to be returned to the petitioners forthwith. Mr. R.N. Bandopadhyay, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue relied upon a decision of this court reported in 254 Income Tax Reports 660 (Sambhu Prasad Agarwal Vs. Director of I.T. & Ors.) to submit the earlier legal position arising out of the then provisions of Section 132(9A) of the said Act was virtually given a go by on introduction of Chapter XIV-B of the said Act with effect from 1st June, 2001. In K.V. Krishnaswamy Naidu & Co. Director of I.T. & Ors.) to submit the earlier legal position arising out of the then provisions of Section 132(9A) of the said Act was virtually given a go by on introduction of Chapter XIV-B of the said Act with effect from 1st June, 2001. In K.V. Krishnaswamy Naidu & Co. the Madras High Court considering the provisions of Section 132(9A) of the said Act (as existing in the material time and up to on or before 31st May, 2002) held that in case of the articles seized and retained beyond the period of 15 days from the date of seizure, the retention itself would have been illegal and hence the authorized officer could not also ask for extension of time for holding the documents beyond the period. Appeal from that decision having been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this court is bound to accept interpretation of the said provisions as given in the Madras case. Though it appears from Sambhu Prasad Agarwal this court in rendering that judgment had considered K.V. Krishnaswamy Naidu & Co., that appeal from the said decision stood dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and yet went on to hold the earlier legal position was virtually given a go by, but it is noticed such view was taken on the fact search and seizure carried out in that case was on 16th October, 2001, after the introduction of Chapter XIV-B in respect of block search and seizure with effect from 1st June, 2001. That decision, therefore, becomes distinguishable. Hence, the limited challenge of the petitioners succeeds. There will be an order directing the Revenue to forthwith return the seized articles as detailed in the Panchanama dated 21st August, 1998 being annexure ‘E’ to the writ petition to the petitioners. The writ petition is allowed to the extent aforesaid. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertakings.