JUDGMENT : BHARGAV D. KARIA, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Shrunjal Shah for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun K. Patel for the respondent. 2. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the recovery proceedings as well as the retention of the books of accounts and other documents seized during the course of search by the respondent-authority. 3. Brief facts of the case are that a search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short ‘the Act’] was conducted in case of the Popular Group on 08.10.2020 in which the premises of the petitioner were also covered. During the course of search, various documents including the original title deeds of the properties of the petitioner were seized under section 132(1) of the Act by order dated 10.10.2020. Thereafter, the respondent-authorities provisionally attached 17 properties of the petitioner under section 132(9B) of the Act by order dated 17.11.2020. Three assessment orders were passed for the Assessment Years 2017-18 to 2020-21 in the month of March 2022. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Appeal before the CIT(A). The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - respondent No. 3 by order dated 23.11.2022 granted conditional stay to the petitioner directing the petitioner to pay total amount of Rs. 7,73,52,000/- as against the demand of more than Rs. 100 Crore raised by the Assessing Officer. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner deposited part of the said amount belatedly and as the petitioner wanted to make further payment, a request was made to return the original seized documents so as to enable the petitioner to sale the property and make the payment of the outstanding demand. 5. The petitioner also made an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 for the reasons recorded for retention of the Books and other documents by the respondents which was replied by reply dated 04.03.2024 and copy of the decision/ approval of extending retention of the document under section 132(8) of the Act was provided. 6. It appears that the petitioner thereafter preferred the present petition for return of books of accounts and documents seized during the course of search as well as setting aside the recovery proceedings thereafter. 7. During the pendency of this petition CIT(A) passed an order reducing the demand by granting substantial relief to the petitioner. 6. It appears that the petitioner thereafter preferred the present petition for return of books of accounts and documents seized during the course of search as well as setting aside the recovery proceedings thereafter. 7. During the pendency of this petition CIT(A) passed an order reducing the demand by granting substantial relief to the petitioner. The respondents have already passed an order giving effect to the order of the CIT(A) for the three assessment year as under: S. No. AY Assessed Income Relief Granted by Ld. CIT(A) Payment made in installments Balance amount payable/recove rable after appeal effect (In Rs.) 1 2017-18 11,35,00,000 11,35,00,000/- 20,00,000/- (-) 23,23,275/- 2 2019-20 92,28,006 00 3,00,000/- 35,04,771/- 3 2020-21 97,72,06,645 92,68,25,695 3,25,00,000/- 4,15,35,907/- 3,48,00,000/- 4,27,17,403/- 8. According to the aforesaid details, there is still outstanding amount of Rs. 4,27,17,403/- payable by the petitioner. 9. Learned advocate Ms. Shrunjal Shah for the petitioner submitted that the respondent-authorities are required to return the books of accounts and other documents which are original title deeds of the property of the petitioner in terms of the provision of section 132(8) of the Act which provides that such documents shall not be retained by the Assessing Officer for a period exceeding 30 days from the date of the order of assessment or reassessment or re-computation under the provisions of the Act unless the reasons are recorded in writing for retaining the same and approval of the Principal Joint Commissioner or Chief Commissioner for such retention is obtained. 10. It was submitted that the petitioner was never provided with the reasons recorded after passing of the assessment orders and the reasons recorded are provided pursuant to the RTI application to the petitioner almost after two years from the date of passing of the assessment order which is not in dispute. It was further pointed out that the reasons for retention of the books and accounts and other documents was only for the purpose of the appeal proceedings. It was therefore submitted that now the appeal proceedings before the CIT(A) are over and the respondent authority therefore are required to return the books of accounts and the other documents. It was further pointed out that the reasons for retention of the books and accounts and other documents was only for the purpose of the appeal proceedings. It was therefore submitted that now the appeal proceedings before the CIT(A) are over and the respondent authority therefore are required to return the books of accounts and the other documents. In support of her submissions reliance was placed on the following decisions: (i) CIT vs. Oriental Rubber Works, (1983) 15 Taxman 51 (SC) (ii) Cowasjee Nusserwanji Dinshaw vs. ITO, (1987) 165 ITR 702 (iii) Madhupuri Corporation vs. S.S. Khan, (2001) 250 ITR 656 (iv) Tin Box Co. vs. ITAT, (1990) 14 Taxman 261 11. On the other hand, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Patel submitted that the respondent-authorities have followed the provisions of section 132(8) of the Act by recording the reasons and as per the reasons recorded by the respondent-authorities, books of accounts and other documents are required to be retained upto 30.04.2025. It was further submitted that as on today, the outstanding demand is of Rs. 4,27,17,403/- and the respondent-authorities are contemplating to challenge the order passed by the CIT(A) before the Tribunal. 12. It was therefore submitted that when there is approval for retention of the books of accounts till 30.04.2025, no interference is required to be made for returning the same to the petitioner. It was submitted that the books of accounts and other documents are required for the purpose of preferring appeal as well as to prove the case of the department before the higher appellate authority. 13. It was further submitted that at the relevant time also, the approval was first granted on 19.04.2022 immediately after the assessment order was passed as provided under section 132(8) of the Act and there is no violation of any of the provisions of the Act. It was submitted that the reliance placed by the petitioner on the decisions are on the facts stated therein and the same would not be applicable in the facts of the case inasmuch as there is no delay on the part of the respondent-authorities to record the reasons and get the approval for retention of the books and other documents. It was submitted that recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioner as the petitioner failed to pay the outstanding demand of more than Rs. It was submitted that recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioner as the petitioner failed to pay the outstanding demand of more than Rs. 100 Crore which is now reduced pursuant to the order passed by the CIT(A)which would be challenged shortly before the Tribunal. 14. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the facts of the case, it would be germane to refer to the relevant provision of section 132(8) of the Act which is applicable at the relevant time and reads as under: “132. Search and seizure: xxx xxx xxx (8) The books of account or other documents seized under sub-section (1) 2 [or sub-section (1A)] shall not be retained by the authorised officer for a period exceeding 30 [thirty days from the date of the order of assessment under 4 [section 153A or clause (c) of section 158BC]] unless the reasons for retaining the same are recorded by him in writing and the approval of the [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner], [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner], [Principal Director General or Director General] or [Principal Director or Director]] for such retention is obtained: Provided that the [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner], [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner], [Principal Director General or Director General] or [Principal Director or Director]] shall not authorise the retention of the books of account and other documents for a period exceeding thirty days after all the proceedings under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or this Act in respect of the years for which the books of account or other documents are relevant are completed.” 15. On perusal of the above provision, it is clear that the respondent-authorities are required to return the books of accounts and other documents within 30 days from the date of passing of the assessment order to the petitioner unless the reasons are recorded in writing for retention of the same with the approval of the higher authority specified in the said provision. 16. 16. On perusal of the facts on record, it is apparent that the respondent-authorities have never communicated the reasons recorded to the petitioner and as such, the petitioner was not aware about the reasons for retention of the books of accounts and other documents which has prevented the petitioner from raising the objections before the Central Board of Direct Taxes as provided under sub-section (10) of section 132 of the Act which reads as under: “Section 132 (10): If a person legally entitled to the books of account or other documents seized under sub-section (1) [or subsection (1A)] objects for any reason to the approval given by the [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner], [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner], [Principal Director General or Director General] or [Principal Director or Director]] under subsection (8), he may make an application to the Board stating therein the reasons for such objection and requesting for the return of the books of account or other documents [and the Board may, after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders as it thinks fit].” 17. On perusal of the above provision, it is clear that the respondents by not providing reasons for almost two years has deprived the petitioner from raising objections for such retention. This itself is enough to hold that the respondents are not authorized to continue retention in spite of the fact that such retention is extended upto 30.04.2025. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Oriental Rubber Works (supra) while applying the provisions of section 132(8) at the relevant time has held as under: “4. In order to decide the aforesaid contention it will be desirable to set out the material provisions of sec. 132 of the Act, namely, sub-secs. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Oriental Rubber Works (supra) while applying the provisions of section 132(8) at the relevant time has held as under: “4. In order to decide the aforesaid contention it will be desirable to set out the material provisions of sec. 132 of the Act, namely, sub-secs. (8), (10) and (12) thereof, which run as follows: “(8) The books of account or other documents seized under sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) shall not be retained by the authorised officer for a period exceeding one hundred and eighty days from the date of the seizure unless the reasons for retaining the same are recorded by him in writing and the approval of the Commissioner for such retention is obtained: Provided that the Commissioner shall not authorise the retention of the books of account and other documents for a period exceeding thirty days after all the proceedings under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922), or this Act in respect of the years for which the books of account or other documents are relevant are completed. (10) If a person legally entitled to the books of account or other documents seized under sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) objects for any reason to the approval given by the Commissioner under sub-section (8), he may make an application to the Board stating therein the reasons for such objection and requesting for the return of the books of account or other documents. (12) On receipt of the application under sub-section (10) the Board may, after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders as it thinks fit.” On a plain reading of the aforesaid provisions it will be clear that ordinarily the books of account or other documents that may be seized under an authorisation issued under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 132 can be retained by the authorised officer or the concerned Income-tax officer for a period of one hundred and eighty days from the date of seizure, whereafter the person from whose custody such books or documents have been seized or the person to whom such books or documents belong becomes entitled to the return of the same unless the reasons for any extended retention are recorded in writing by the authorised officer/the concerned Income Tax Officer and approval of the Commissioner for such retention is obtained. In other words two conditions must be fulfilled before such extended retention becomes permissible in law: (a) reasons in writing must be recorded by the authorised officer or the concerned Income-tax Officer seeking the Commissioner's approval and (b) obtaining of the Commissioner's approval for such extended retention and if either of these conditions is not fulfilled such extended retention will become unlawful and the concerned person (i.e. the person from whose custody such books or documents have been seized or the person to whom these belong) acquires a right to the return of the same forthwith. It is true that sub-sec. (8) does not in terms provide that the Commissioner's approval or the recorded reasons on which it might be based should be communicated to the concerned person but in our view since the person concerned is bound to be materially prejudiced in the enforcement of his right to have such books and documents returned to him by being kept ignorant about the factum of fulfillment of either of the conditions it is obligatory upon the Revenue to communicate the Commissioner's approval as also the recorded reasons to the person concerned. In the absence of such communication the Commissioner's decision according his approval will not become effective. 5. Moreover, sub-sec. (10) confers upon the person legally entitled to the return of the seized books and documents a right to object to the approval given by the Commissioner under sub-sec. (8) by making an application to the Central Board stating therein the reasons for such objection and under sub-sec. (12) it is provided that the Central Board may, after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard pass such orders as it thinks fit. It is obvious that without the knowledge of the factum of the Commissioner's approval as also of the recorded reasons on the basis of which such approval has been obtained it will not be possible for the person to whom the seized books or documents belong to make any effective objection to the approval before the Board and get back his books or documents. In our view the scheme of sub-secs. In our view the scheme of sub-secs. (8), (10) and (12) of sec.132 makes it amply clear that there is a statutory obligation on the Revenue to communicate to the person concerned not merely the Commissioner's approval but the recorded reasons on which the same has been obtained and that such communication must be made as expeditiously as possible after the passing of the order of approval by the Commissioner and in default of such expeditious communicating any further retention of the seized books or documents would become invalid and unlawful. It is obvious that such obligation arises in regard to every approval of the Commissioner that might have been accorded from time to time.” 18. This Court in case of Cowasjee Nusserwanji Dinshaw (supra), after analyzing the provisions of section 132 of the Act and conjoint reading of the provisions of sub-sections (8), (10) and (12) held “that the assessee must be communicated reasons recorded by the Authorized Officer on the basis whereof the Commissioner granted necessary approval.” Thereafter, considering the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Oriental Rubber Work (supra) it was held that failure to communicate the reasons recorded would render further retention of the account books and documents seized udder sub-section (8) of section 132 illegal, invalid and unlawful. 19. In case of Madhupuri Corporation (supra) it was held as under: “10. Upon hearing the learned advocates, we had specifically asked learned advocate Shri Naik appearing for the respondent authorities about the reasons for which the respondent authorities wanted to retain the books of account and other material beyond the period of 180 days. It was impressed upon him that the respondent authorities must have a sound reason for further retention of the books of account and other material belonging to the assessees. Upon perusal of the reasons stated in the application given by the Assessing Officer it is clear that the Assessing Officer wanted to retain the books of account and other material beyond the period of 180 days because notices under sec. 158BC under the Act had been issued and, according to the provisions of the Act, the respondent authorities have to complete the assessment on or before 31st December 2001. 158BC under the Act had been issued and, according to the provisions of the Act, the respondent authorities have to complete the assessment on or before 31st December 2001. It has been further stated that for the purpose of completion of some of the consequential procedures, a further period of three months is required and therefore the Assessing Officer had prayed for extension upto 31st March 2002, which was duly accorded by the Commissioner. xxx xxx xxx 12. Looking to the facts of the case, we are of the view that it would not be just and proper on the part of the respondent authorities to retain the books of account and other seized material till the block assessment is completed. It is true that the Act gives powers to the authorities to retain the books of account and other material beyond the period of 180 days but that does not mean that the permission should be granted by the higher authorities as a matter of course. The power which has been given to higher authority for giving approval for further retention of the books of account and other seized material is to be used with circumspection. The said power is to be exercised reasonably, in good faith and on correct grounds. The object of retention of the books of account and other material upto 180 days is to allow the concerned officer to go through the material seized so as to find out details about the undisclosed assets or income of the assessee which had escaped assessment. The legislature considered the period of 180 days to be reasonable period for the above purpose. Unless there is a special reason, the higher authority should not extend the said period by exercising its discretion under the provisions of sec. 132(8) of the Act. Permitting the concerned officer to cause delay in performance of his duty without any justifiable reason will amount to abuse of discretion on the part of the higher authority. 13. Unless there is a special reason, the higher authority should not extend the said period by exercising its discretion under the provisions of sec. 132(8) of the Act. Permitting the concerned officer to cause delay in performance of his duty without any justifiable reason will amount to abuse of discretion on the part of the higher authority. 13. Looking to the facts of the case and the provisions of law, we are of the view that simply because the Commissioner has been authorised to accord approval for retention of the books of account and other material beyond the period of 180 days, it would not mean that without recording any special justifiable reason or for a vague reason he should accord his approval to the authorised or Assessing officer as and when he makes a request for retention of the books of account or other material beyond the period of 180 days. In the circumstances, looking to the facts of the case, we hold that the reasons which have been recorded by the Assessing Officer do not appear to be just and proper as there is no logic behind the retention of the books of account and other material till the entire block assessment is over. The respondent authorities can very well take out copies of the documents required by them and can do the needful with the help of the said copies. It is always open to the respondent authorities to ask the petitioners to return the original documents in case of need.” 20. The Delhi High Court in case of Metal Fittings (P) Ltd. (supra) in similar facts has held as under: “7. In our opinion, the period of 180 days prescribed by the sub-section is mandatory. It is not directory. A plain reading of the sub-section suggests that the books of account seized shall not be retained by the authorised officer for a period exceeding 180 days form the date of the seizure unless two things are done before the expiry of the period namely (i) reasons are recorded by the authorised officer in writing and (ii) the approval of the Commissioner is obtained. Both these things are a precondition. They must be done before the period of 180 days expires. This conclusion is supported by the strong language u/s 2b sub-section (8) is worded. Both these things are a precondition. They must be done before the period of 180 days expires. This conclusion is supported by the strong language u/s 2b sub-section (8) is worded. To use the language of Lord Russell of Killowen, The wording is too strong to justify the view - Smith v. Cammel, Laird & Co. (1940) AC 242 (HL). 8. The sub-section is framed in negative and prohibitory terms. It says that the books of account ‘shall not be retained’ ‘for a period exceeding one hundred and eighty days’. The words ‘not’ and ‘exceeding’ are the key words. These words go to the power and jurisdiction itself. Neglect to comply with the conditions of the sub-section is fatal to the right of retention beyond 180 days. Negative words alone are a deciding factor to compel a mandatory construction of a statute of this kind. We do not agree that even if the approval of the Commissioner is accorded after the expiry of 180 days, the retention of the books will be Valid. We, respectfully, agree with the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court. We do not think that sub-section (8) is widely worded, as is the view of the Allahabad High Court. in our judgment, it is restrictive in nature. It restricts the right of the department to retain books for an indefinite time. It is couched in negative terms and sets a deadline within which the approval of the Commissioner must be obtained. Where statutory restrictions are couched in negative terms they are almost invariably held to be mandatory. Negative words compel an imperative construction. By the language used in the sub. Section, the thing must be done in a particular form or manner. It shall not be done otherwise. 9. The whole aim and object of the Legislature would be plainly defeated if the command to do the thing in the particular manner is not obeyed. The neglect of the requirements of an Act which prescribes how something is to be done will invalidate the thing being done. ‘Provisions with respect to time are always obligatory, unless a power of extending the time is given to the Court - Barker v. Palmer, (1881) 8 QBD 9. The exercise of power to retain books after the designated time is denied to the authorised officer. It is a forbidden act. ‘Provisions with respect to time are always obligatory, unless a power of extending the time is given to the Court - Barker v. Palmer, (1881) 8 QBD 9. The exercise of power to retain books after the designated time is denied to the authorised officer. It is a forbidden act. The power can be exercised only in the manner and within the time prescribed. The requirement as to the time of exercise of the power is mandatory.” 21. In view of the above conspectus of law and considering the facts of the case as well as further development which has taken place during the pendency of this petition in form of passing of the order by the CIT(A) granting substantial relief to the petitioner reducing the demand by more than Rs. 90 Crore, we are of the opinion that the respondent-authorities are not justified in continuing the retention of books of accounts and other documents contrary to the provision of section 132(8) of the Act and the petitioner is entitled to receive the same forthwith from the respondent-authorities. 22. In view of the foregoing reasons, this petition succeeds and the respondent-authorities are directed to return the books of accounts and other documents seized during the course of search under section 132(1) of the Act forthwith. However, if the respondent-authorities are desirous to retain the copies of such books of account and other documents, the same shall be provided by the petitioner prior to receipt of the original documents with an undertaking to be filed before the respondent-authority to provide the original documents as and when called for. 23. With regard to other reliefs prayed for by the petitioner for the lifting of the attachment over bank accounts and the DMAT account, the same would be consequential to the order passed by the CIT(A) and the petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate proceedings before the respondent-authority for the same. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.