By Court: special survey was conducted on 15th Jan., 2001 against 16 jewellers, w h o participated in "Swarn Sanbandh" exhibition at Hotel Taj Residency, Lucknow during 13th Jan., 2001 to 15th Jan., 2001 in which petitioner had also participated. survey was converted into search and seizure operation under s. 132 of IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act ) and certain jewellery and other precious items were seized from petitioner s residential and business premises. search and seizure operation has been challenged by petitioner by means of present writ petition. In meantime, proceedings for block assessment under s. 158BC of Act were initiated. AO completed assessment vide order dt. 30th Jan., 2003 and determined undisclosed income at Rs. 68.14 lakhs. In appeal CIT(A) had confirmed addition of Rs. 91,800 on account of excess silver found. However, he granted relief aggregating Rs. 67,16,498. Both Revenue and petitioner carried matter further in appeal before Tribunal. Tribunal vide order dt. 30th April, 2007 had dismissed appeals preferred by Revenue as also petitioner including cross objections. argument of petitioner is that relief of Rs. 67,16,498 allowed to petitioner by CIT(A) stands confirmed by Tribunal. application has been filed by petitioner seeking release of seized articles on ground that its further retention is without authority of law. We have heard Sri S.M.K. Chaudhary, learned counsel for petitioner n d Sri D.D. Chopra, learned senior standing counsel appearing for Revenue. matter was directed to be listed on 31st Jan., 2008, when on request of Sri D.D. Chopra it was directed to be listed on 4th Feb., 2008 to enable him to obtain instructions and on 4th Feb., 2008 on his request it was directed to be listed today. Sri D.D. Chopra on basis of instructions received from Department, has stated that there was no interim order operating in favour of Revenue during pendency of appeal before Tribunal. It may be mentioned here that CIT(A) had decided matter on 26th June, 2003 i.e. about four and half years before. He had allowed relief of Rs. 67,16,498. major portion of seized articles has been found to have been duly explained and, therefore, relief has been given. As there was no interim order passed by Tribunal pending appeal, Revenue could not have retained seized articles any further. Sri D.D. Chopra submits that order of Tribunal dt. 30th April, 2004 has been received by CIT-I, Lucknow only on 29th Nov., 2007 and matter is being examined for filing further appeal before this Court under s. 260A of Act. Be that as it may, as there was no interim order passed by Tribunal during pendency of appeal before it for period of more than four and half years, we see neither any reason nor any justification for Department to withhold or retain seized articles any further. We accordingly direct Dy. CIT, Central Circle-3, Lucknow, respondent No. 4 to forthwith release seized articles within period of three days from date certified copy of this order is filed before said authority. In event respondent No. 4 is not proper authority to release seized articles, he will indicate who is proper authority and petitioner thereafter shall approach said authority for releasing seized articles within three days from date request is made to said authority. In view of order passed by us today, no further orders are required to be passed in writ petition and it stands disposed of accordingly. *** RAJ JEWELLERS v. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) & ORS.