B.K. Nowlakha and Ors. v. Union of India AND Ors.

192 ITR 436High Court1991#6894 most cited

What is B.K. Nowlakha and Ors. v. Union of India AND Ors. authority for?

Prohibitory orders issued under Section 132(3) are invalid if mandatory legal conditions are not complied with, and such invalid orders cannot extend the period of limitation for assessment. The power under Section 132(3) cannot be exercised to circumvent Section 132(1) read with Section 132(5).

16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2025.

Also referred to as

B.K. Nowlakha · Union of India · 192 ITR 436 · Section 132(3) · Section 132(1) · Section 132(5) · prohibitory orders · mandatory conditions · invalid orders · period of limitation · search and seizure · assessment

Issues it is cited on

section 132(5)section 132(2)section 132(3)section 158bewarrant of authorisationpanchnamasection 292bsection 132(1)section 158bsection 292section 158section 29

Judgments citing B.K. Nowlakha and Ors. v. Union of India AND Ors.

Sri Srinivasa Educational & Charitable Trust, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Bengaluru

ITA 940/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri M.V Prasad, CA & Shri KS Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT &
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(3)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 25Section 250Section 8

…the materials placed under restraint represented undisclosed income or investment, which is mandatory before invoking section 132(3) of the Act. 8.3.3 The learned AR relied on several judicial precedents, including B.K. Nowlakha v. Union of India reported in 192 ITR 436 (Hon’ble Delhi High Court), Dr. C. Balakrishna Nair v. CIT reported in 103 Taxman 242(Hon’ble Kerala High Court), and CIT v. Sandhya P. Naik reported in 124 Taxman 384 (Hon’ble Bombay High Court), to submit that prohibitory orders issued without compliance of mandatory legal conditions are invalid and cannot extend the period of limitation for as…

Sri Srinivasa Educational & Charitable Trust, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore

ITA 939/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri M.V Prasad, CA & Shri KS Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT &
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(3)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 25Section 250Section 8

…the materials placed under restraint represented undisclosed income or investment, which is mandatory before invoking section 132(3) of the Act. 8.3.3 The learned AR relied on several judicial precedents, including B.K. Nowlakha v. Union of India reported in 192 ITR 436 (Hon’ble Delhi High Court), Dr. C. Balakrishna Nair v. CIT reported in 103 Taxman 242(Hon’ble Kerala High Court), and CIT v. Sandhya P. Naik reported in 124 Taxman 384 (Hon’ble Bombay High Court), to submit that prohibitory orders issued without compliance of mandatory legal conditions are invalid and cannot extend the period of limitation for as…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sanjay Jain, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the department are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee’s are allowed as indicated above

ITA 5325/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm

Section 132Section 153A

…planation to section 132(3) effective from 1/7/1995, that a restraint order does not amount to seizure. Therefore, by passing a restraint order, the time-limit available for framing of the order cannot be extended." In the case of B. K. Nowlakha & ors Vs. UOI 192 ITR 436 (Del), the search was conducted on 11/2/91 in the course of which certain unexplained assets including antique pieces were found. No seizure was made on that date but order of restraint was passed u/s 132(3) of the Act which was lifted on 9/4/91. The question before the court was whether such extended for the purpose of section 132(5) of the Act.…

Sh. Sanjay Jain, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the department are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee’s are allowed as indicated above

ITA 5024/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm

Section 132Section 153A

…planation to section 132(3) effective from 1/7/1995, that a restraint order does not amount to seizure. Therefore, by passing a restraint order, the time-limit available for framing of the order cannot be extended." In the case of B. K. Nowlakha & ors Vs. UOI 192 ITR 436 (Del), the search was conducted on 11/2/91 in the course of which certain unexplained assets including antique pieces were found. No seizure was made on that date but order of restraint was passed u/s 132(3) of the Act which was lifted on 9/4/91. The question before the court was whether such extended for the purpose of section 132(5) of the Act.…

JCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Surya Vinayak Industries Ltd. Amalgamated Company of Amalgamating Company M/S. Rim Zim Valley Products Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the department are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee’s are allowed as indicated above

ITA 3170/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm

Section 132Section 153A

…planation to section 132(3) effective from 1/7/1995, that a restraint order does not amount to seizure. Therefore, by passing a restraint order, the time-limit available for framing of the order cannot be extended." In the case of B. K. Nowlakha & ors Vs. UOI 192 ITR 436 (Del), the search was conducted on 11/2/91 in the course of which certain unexplained assets including antique pieces were found. No seizure was made on that date but order of restraint was passed u/s 132(3) of the Act which was lifted on 9/4/91. The question before the court was whether such extended for the purpose of section 132(5) of the Act.…

JCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Surya Vinayak Industries Ltd. Amalgamated Company of Amalgamating Company M/S. Rim Zim Valley Products Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the department are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee’s are allowed as indicated above

ITA 3167/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm

Section 132Section 153A

…planation to section 132(3) effective from 1/7/1995, that a restraint order does not amount to seizure. Therefore, by passing a restraint order, the time-limit available for framing of the order cannot be extended." In the case of B. K. Nowlakha & ors Vs. UOI 192 ITR 436 (Del), the search was conducted on 11/2/91 in the course of which certain unexplained assets including antique pieces were found. No seizure was made on that date but order of restraint was passed u/s 132(3) of the Act which was lifted on 9/4/91. The question before the court was whether such extended for the purpose of section 132(5) of the Act.…

JCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Surya Vinyak Industries Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the department are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee’s are allowed as indicated above

ITA 3162/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm

Section 132Section 153A

…planation to section 132(3) effective from 1/7/1995, that a restraint order does not amount to seizure. Therefore, by passing a restraint order, the time-limit available for framing of the order cannot be extended." In the case of B. K. Nowlakha & ors Vs. UOI 192 ITR 436 (Del), the search was conducted on 11/2/91 in the course of which certain unexplained assets including antique pieces were found. No seizure was made on that date but order of restraint was passed u/s 132(3) of the Act which was lifted on 9/4/91. The question before the court was whether such extended for the purpose of section 132(5) of the Act.…

JCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Surya Vinyak Industries Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the department are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee’s are allowed as indicated above

ITA 3158/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm

Section 132Section 153A

…planation to section 132(3) effective from 1/7/1995, that a restraint order does not amount to seizure. Therefore, by passing a restraint order, the time-limit available for framing of the order cannot be extended." In the case of B. K. Nowlakha & ors Vs. UOI 192 ITR 436 (Del), the search was conducted on 11/2/91 in the course of which certain unexplained assets including antique pieces were found. No seizure was made on that date but order of restraint was passed u/s 132(3) of the Act which was lifted on 9/4/91. The question before the court was whether such extended for the purpose of section 132(5) of the Act.…

Commissioner of Income Tax Centre III vs. Patliputra International Trading Ltd

ITA - 351 / 2009HC Delhi30 Nov 2009
Section 132(1)Section 158B

…the view of the Tribunal is correct in law. The learned counsel in addition to placing reliance upon M/s. KCC Software Limited (supra) also referred to number of other judgments. She submitted that in B.K. Nowlakha and Ors. v. Union of India AND Ors., (1991) 192 ITR 436 (Delhi) this Court has held: "once an order of restraint had been passed under Section 132 (3), the period of limitation commenced and such an order could not be continued unless and until the provisions of Section 132 (8A) were satisfied." #### XXX XXX XXX "The power under Section 132(3) cannot be exercised as to circumvent the provisions of…

Commissioner of Income Tax Central III vs. Harmony Psychiatry Centre Pvt Ltd

ITA - 339 / 2009HC Delhi30 Nov 2009
Section 132(1)Section 158B

…the view of the Tribunal is correct in law. The learned counsel in addition to placing reliance upon M/s. KCC Software Limited (supra) also referred to number of other judgments. She submitted that in B.K. Nowlakha and Ors. v. Union of India AND Ors., (1991) 192 ITR 436 (Delhi) this Court has held: "once an order of restraint had been passed under Section 132 (3), the period of limitation commenced and such an order could not be continued unless and until the provisions of Section 132 (8A) were satisfied." #### XXX XXX XXX "The power under Section 132(3) cannot be exercised as to circumvent the provisions of…

Commissione of Income Tax Central III vs. Professional Leasing & Capital Service Ltd

ITA - 350 / 2009HC Delhi30 Nov 2009
Section 132(1)Section 158B

…the view of the Tribunal is correct in law. The learned counsel in addition to placing reliance upon M/s. KCC Software Limited (supra) also referred to number of other judgments. She submitted that in B.K. Nowlakha and Ors. v. Union of India AND Ors., (1991) 192 ITR 436 (Delhi) this Court has held: "once an order of restraint had been passed under Section 132 (3), the period of limitation commenced and such an order could not be continued unless and until the provisions of Section 132 (8A) were satisfied." #### XXX XXX XXX "The power under Section 132(3) cannot be exercised as to circumvent the provisions of…

Commissiner of Income Tax Centre III vs. Kandla Petrochmicals Corp. Ltd

ITA - 336 / 2009HC Delhi30 Nov 2009
Section 132(1)Section 158B

…the view of the Tribunal is correct in law. The learned counsel in addition to placing reliance upon M/s. KCC Software Limited (supra) also referred to number of other judgments. She submitted that in B.K. Nowlakha and Ors. v. Union of India AND Ors., (1991) 192 ITR 436 (Delhi) this Court has held: **}**- "once an order of restraint had been passed under Section 132 (3), the period of limitation commenced and such an order could not be continued unless and until the provisions of Section 132 (8A) were satisfied." #### XXX XXX XXX "The power under Section 132(3) cannot be exercised as to circumvent the provis…

Commissioner of Income Tax Central III vs. Annie Investment & Finance Co. P.Ltd

ITA - 335 / 2009HC Delhi30 Nov 2009
Section 132(1)Section 158B

…the view of the Tribunal is correct in law. The learned counsel in addition to placing reliance upon M/s. KCC Software Limited (supra) also referred to number of other judgments. She submitted that in B.K. Nowlakha and Ors. v. Union of India AND Ors., (1991) 192 ITR 436 (Delhi) this Court has held: 'n "once an order of restraint had been passed under Section 132 (3), the period of limitation commenced and such an order could not be continued unless and until the provisions of Section 132 (8A) were satisfied." #### XXX XXX XXX "The power under Section 132(3) cannot be exercised as to circumvent the provisions…

Commissioner of Income-Tax Central III vs. M/s. Shilpi Securities Pvt. Ltd. etc. etc

ITA-130/2009HC Delhi30 Nov 2009
Section 132(1)Section 158B

…iew of the Tribunal is correct in law. The learned counsel in addition to placing reliance upon M/s. KCC Software Limited (supra) also referred to number of other judgments. She submitted that in B.K. Nowlakha and Ors. v. Union of India AND Ors., (1991) 192 ITR 436 (Delhi) this Court has held: “once an order of restraint had been passed under Section 132 (3), the period of limitation commenced and such an order could not be continued unless and until the provisions of Section 132 (8A) were satisfied.” xxx xxx xxx “The power under Section 132(3) cannot be exercised as to circumvent the provisi…

Commissioner of Income Tax Central III vs. Shilpi Securities Pvt Ltd

ITA - 130 / 2009HC Delhi30 Nov 2009
Section 132(1)Section 158B

…iew of the Tribunal is correct in law. The learned counsel in addition to placing reliance upon M/s. KCC Software Limited (supra) also referred to number of other judgments. She submitted that in B.K. Nowlakha and Ors. v. Union of India AND Ors., (1991) 192 ITR 436 (Delhi) this Court has held: “once an order of restraint had been passed under Section 132 (3), the period of limitation commenced and such an order could not be continued unless and until the provisions of Section 132 (8A) were satisfied.” xxx xxx xxx “The power under Section 132(3) cannot be exercised as to circumvent the provisi…

Commissioner of Income Tax Cen vs. M/S Sarb Consulate Marine Prod

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/656/2006HC Delhi02 May 2007

Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANJU GOEL,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH

Section 132Section 132(3)Section 156BSection 158BSection 260A

…uthorised officer only of deemed seizure under Section 132(1) of the Act. Passing an order under Section 132(3) of the Act was not at all warranted given the nature of the articles, that is, fishing trawlers. 20. In B.K. Nowlakha v. Union of India, [1991] 192 ITR 436, this Court held that if a seizure is effected then an order is required to be made under Section 132(5) of the Act but if there is no seizure and only an order of restraint is passed under Section 132(3) of the Act, then other consequences follow including the possibility of an extension of a ITA No.656/2006…

B.K. Nowlakha and Ors. v. Union of India AND Ors. (192 ITR 436) — Cited in 16 Judgments | BharatTax