INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. U.K.MAHAPATRA & CO
What did the Supreme Court hold?
The Supreme Court directed the return of the seized documents to the respondents. However, the appellants were granted the right to take certified copies or printouts of all documents and CDs before their return.
What were the facts?
Documents were seized during a survey operation under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act. The High Court found the survey and impounding of documents to be illegal due to procedural lapses. The Supreme Court was asked to decide on the return of these documents.
What were the issues?
Whether documents seized during an illegal survey operation under Section 133A should be returned, and if so, under what conditions regarding the preservation of the revenue's right to access the information.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection74 citing93 ITR 505 · 1974 · SC
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5067 OF 2009 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 7434/2009] INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ORS. ... APPELLANT(S) :VERSUS: U.K. MAHAPATRA & CO. AND ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R Leave granted. Having heard the learned Additional Solicitor General Mr. Mohan Parasaran and Mr. Pal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, we are of the opinion that keeping in view the documents in question having been seized as far back as 28.1.2008, the appellants could not and in fact did not object to return thereof. The learned Additional Solicitor General states that the seized documents have been deposited in the High Court which are lying in the custody of Deputy Registrar (Judicial). We may also notice that the High Court in its order directed: “13. For the reasons stated in paragraphs 7 to 10, the survey operation under Section 133A in the petitioner's premises, impounding of books -2- of account/documents on 28.5.2008 and retention of the same till date being made illegally without following the procedure as laid
down in Section 133A of the I.T. Act, the petitioner is entitled to get back the impounded books of account/documents. In C/T v. Kamal & Co. (2007) CTR (Raj) 200, it was held that the materials collected during the course of illegal survey can be used for making additions. In Pooran v. Director of Inspection (Inv), (1974) 93 ITR 505 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held even assuming that the search and seizure were in contravention of the provisions of Section 132 of the I.T. Act, still the material seized was liable to be used subject to law before the Income Tax authorities against the person from whose custody it was seized. Therefore, if the opposite parties think that the books of account or any portion thereof are or is relevant for their purpose, they are entitled to take copy of such documents or portion of such books of account. 14. In the above fact situation, we direct opposite party No. 2 to return the books of account/documents as impounded from the premises of the petitioner in course of survey under Section 133A by opposite party No.1 within a period of two weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him by the petitioner. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.” In view of the stand taken before us by the parties, we direct the aforesaid officer of the High Court to return the documents to the respondents herein, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, subject to the condition that the appellants herein would be entitled to take the print out of all the pages of the documents and the copies of the CD ROM, which may be certified by the said Deputy Registrar. Also -3- similar certification would be granted by the said officer in respect of the photocopies of the blank cheques and other documents which have been photocopied. The appeal is disposed of with the aforementioned directions. .......................J (S.B. SINHA)
.......................J
(DEEPAK VERMA)
NEW DELHI, JULY 29, 2009.
More judgments on Section 133A
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ranchhodbhai Kurjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 553/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Amr Infrastructures, Hyderabad vs DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), HyderabadITA 818/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Shri Vikaskumar Macwan, Nadiad vs Dc/ACIT Central Circle 3, VadodaraITA 2022/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026