The petitioner was a member of the political party called Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M)) and was the Secretary of the District Committee, Thrissur. The said political party had a Central Committee with its office at New Delhi and State Committees in various States, apart from District Committees in the States. The ‘CPI(M)’, was an assessee to income tax and the Central Committee filed the returns every year including the accounts of the State and District Committees. The District Committee of Thrissur CPI(M) had an account at the Bank of India, Thrissur Branch.A search and seizure proceedings under section 132 was initiated against him on ground that bank account of political party was not linked with its PAN which led to non-disclosure of particular bank account from which huge amount was withdrawn, giving rise to a reasonable belief that petitioner was in possession of money representing wholly or partly income which had not been disclosed for purpose of income tax. On writ the  petitioner contended that failure to link PAN with bank account was due to default of bank as a result of a typographical error. Court held that  materials obtained by department prima facie indicated that despite request by bank from 2010 onwards to submit documents for providing KYC and also to link bank account with PAN, there had been a total refusal on part of persons operating bank account to furnish such records.  Further, bank account had not even been linked to PAN. There was  material available with revenue to prima facie assume that petitioner was in possession of money, which had not been disclosed to income tax department. Satisfaction arrived at by revenue to initiate a search and seizure under section 132 could not be held to be perverse or legally untenable. As reagrds  prohibitory order issued under section 132(3), Chief Manager of Bank of India, Thrissur Main Branch was directed not to deal with four specified accounts and all other bank accounts of political party held in that Branch, however, by virtue of sub-section (8A) of section 132, such an order could not remain valid beyond 60 days. Since period of 60 days had already expired, prohibitory order had already expired by operation of law and hence could not remain valid. (SJ)