CIT v. Mrs. Sandhya P. Naik

253 ITR 534High Court2002#1897 most cited

What is CIT v. Mrs. Sandhya P. Naik authority for?

A search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act must be continuous; if discontinued and resumed, there must be a valid explanation for the gap.

60

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Mrs. Sandhya P. Naik · Section 132 · search · seizure · continuity of search · gap in search · explanation for delay · limitation period · assessment procedure

Sections most often in play

Section 153BSection 132(3)Section 132(8A)Section 153ASection 115BBESection 68Section 69CSection 250

Issues it is cited on

section 132(5)section 132(3)section 132(2)section 65(b)section 158besection 65asection 153b(1)(a)section 62section 119(1)warrant of authorisationsection 153(2)time barred assessment

Judgments citing CIT v. Mrs. Sandhya P. Naik

Asst CIT Cir 2, Thane vs. Salasar Developers, Thane

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4512/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(3)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…passed not because anything was to be done but because it was not practicable to take physical possession and remove the material to a safe place at the relevant time. As held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Mrs. Sandhya P. Naik [2002] 253 ITR 534, the authorized officer cannot keep the search proceedings in operation by passing a restraint order under section 132(3) so as to circumvent the provisions of section 132(3), read with section 132(5). However, the situation would be different where a prohibitory order under section 132(3) is issued because such order, unlike- a restraint order,…

Asst CIT Cir 2, Thane vs. Salasar Developers, Thane

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4511/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(3)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…passed not because anything was to be done but because it was not practicable to take physical possession and remove the material to a safe place at the relevant time. As held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Mrs. Sandhya P. Naik [2002] 253 ITR 534, the authorized officer cannot keep the search proceedings in operation by passing a restraint order under section 132(3) so as to circumvent the provisions of section 132(3), read with section 132(5). However, the situation would be different where a prohibitory order under section 132(3) is issued because such order, unlike- a restraint order,…

Balaji Universal Tradelink P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2183/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Arora

Section 132(3)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…passed not because anything was to be done but because it was not practicable to take physical possession and remove the material to a safe place at the relevant time. As held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Mrs. Sandhya P. Naik [2002] 253 ITR 534, the authorized officer cannot keep the search proceedings in operation by passing a restraint order under section 132(3) so as to circumvent the provisions of section 132(3), read with section 132(5). However, the situation would be different where a prohibitory order under section 132(3) is issued because such order, unlike- a restraint order,…

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

…a. Search can be said to be concluded if all these transactions are complied with. In this regard we find strength from the contents of para 6 of the order of judicial member in the case of Nandlal Gandhi 115 ITD 1 (Mum). In the case of CIT Vs. Sandhya P Naik 253 ITR 534 (Bom), the question was whether the prohibitory order u/s 132(3) would extend the period of limitation u/s 158 BE. The Court decided against the revenue by observing as under: "Action u/s 132(3) of the Income-tax Act can be restored to only if there is a practical difficulty in seizing the item which is liable to be seized. When there is no such…

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

…a. Search can be said to be concluded if all these transactions are complied with. In this regard we find strength from the contents of para 6 of the order of judicial member in the case of Nandlal Gandhi 115 ITD 1 (Mum). In the case of CIT Vs. Sandhya P Naik 253 ITR 534 (Bom), the question was whether the prohibitory order u/s 132(3) would extend the period of limitation u/s 158 BE. The Court decided against the revenue by observing as under: "Action u/s 132(3) of the Income-tax Act can be restored to only if there is a practical difficulty in seizing the item which is liable to be seized. When there is no such…

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

…a. Search can be said to be concluded if all these transactions are complied with. In this regard we find strength from the contents of para 6 of the order of judicial member in the case of Nandlal Gandhi 115 ITD 1 (Mum). In the case of CIT Vs. Sandhya P Naik 253 ITR 534 (Bom), the question was whether the prohibitory order u/s 132(3) would extend the period of limitation u/s 158 BE. The Court decided against the revenue by observing as under: "Action u/s 132(3) of the Income-tax Act can be restored to only if there is a practical difficulty in seizing the item which is liable to be seized. When there is no such…

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

…a. Search can be said to be concluded if all these transactions are complied with. In this regard we find strength from the contents of para 6 of the order of judicial member in the case of Nandlal Gandhi 115 ITD 1 (Mum). In the case of CIT Vs. Sandhya P Naik 253 ITR 534 (Bom), the question was whether the prohibitory order u/s 132(3) would extend the period of limitation u/s 158 BE. The Court decided against the revenue by observing as under: "Action u/s 132(3) of the Income-tax Act can be restored to only if there is a practical difficulty in seizing the item which is liable to be seized. When there is no such…

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

…a. Search can be said to be concluded if all these transactions are complied with. In this regard we find strength from the contents of para 6 of the order of judicial member in the case of Nandlal Gandhi 115 ITD 1 (Mum). In the case of CIT Vs. Sandhya P Naik 253 ITR 534 (Bom), the question was whether the prohibitory order u/s 132(3) would extend the period of limitation u/s 158 BE. The Court decided against the revenue by observing as under: "Action u/s 132(3) of the Income-tax Act can be restored to only if there is a practical difficulty in seizing the item which is liable to be seized. When there is no such…

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

…a. Search can be said to be concluded if all these transactions are complied with. In this regard we find strength from the contents of para 6 of the order of judicial member in the case of Nandlal Gandhi 115 ITD 1 (Mum). In the case of CIT Vs. Sandhya P Naik 253 ITR 534 (Bom), the question was whether the prohibitory order u/s 132(3) would extend the period of limitation u/s 158 BE. The Court decided against the revenue by observing as under: "Action u/s 132(3) of the Income-tax Act can be restored to only if there is a practical difficulty in seizing the item which is liable to be seized. When there is no such…

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

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

…of Section 132(1) read with Section 132 (5). When a search is conducted and valuable movable articles are found which are liable to be seized, then should be seized." 18. She also relied upon the following observations in CIT v. Mrs. Sandhya P. Naik, [2002] 253 ITR 534 (Bom.): "Action under Section 132(3) of the Income Tax Act, ![](_page_15_Picture_1.jpeg) difficulty in seizing the item which is liable to be seized. Where there is no such practical difficulty the officer is left with no other alternative but to seize the item, if is of the view that it represents undisclosed income. Power under Section 132(3…

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

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

…of Section 132(1) read with Section 132 (5). When a search is conducted and valuable movable articles are found which are liable to be seized, then should be seized." 18. She also relied upon the following observations in CIT v. Mrs. Sandhya P. Naik, [2002] 253 ITR 534 (Bom.): "Action under Section 132(3) of the Income Tax Act ![](_page_15_Picture_1.jpeg) difficulty in seizing the item which is liable to be seized. Where there is no such practical difficulty the officer is left with no other alternative but to seize the item, if is of the view that it represents undisclosed income. Power under Section 132(3)…

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

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

…of Section 132(1) read with Section 132 (5). When a search is conducted and valuable movable articles are found which are liable to be seized, then should be seized." 18. She also relied upon the following observations in CIT v. Mrs. Sandhya P. Naik, [2002] 253 ITR 534 (Bom.): ![](_page_15_Picture_1.jpeg) difficulty in seizing the item which is liable to be seized. Where there is no such practical difficulty the officer is left with no other alternative but to seize the item, if is of the view that it represents undisclosed income. Power under Section 132(3) of the Act cannot be exercised so as to circumvent…

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

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

…of Section 132(1) read with Section 132 (5). When a search is conducted and valuable movable articles are found which are liable to be seized, then should be seized." 18. She also relied upon the following observations in CIT v. Mrs. Sandhya P. Naik, [2002] 253 ITR 534 (Bom.): ![](_page_15_Picture_1.jpeg) difficulty in seizing the item which is liable to be seized. Where there is no such practical difficulty the officer is left with no other alternative but to seize the item, if is of the view that it represents undisclosed income. Power under Section 132(3) of the Act cannot be exercised so as to circumvent…

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

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

…of Section 132(1) read with Section 132 (5). When a search is conducted and valuable movable articles are found which are liable to be seized, then should be seized." 18. She also relied upon the following observations in CIT v. Mrs. Sandhya P. Naik, [2002] 253 ITR 534 (Bom.): ![](_page_15_Picture_1.jpeg) ![](_page_17_Picture_1.jpeg) ![](_page_18_Picture_1.jpeg) restraint orders were held to be invalid for want of approval of use Commissioner which was required to be obtained under Section 132(8)(a) for extension of the restraint beyond 60 days. Accordingly, we decide the question of limitation in favour of…

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

…on 132(1) read with Section 132 (5). When a search is conducted and valuable movable articles are found which are liable to be seized, then should be seized.” 18. She also relied upon the following observations in CIT v. Mrs. Sandhya P. Naik, [2002] 253 ITR 534 (Bom.): 2009:DHC:5083-DB difficulty in seizing the item which is liable to be seized. Where there is no such practical difficulty the officer is left with no other alternative but to seize the item, if is of the view that it represents undisclosed income. Power under Section 132(3) of the Act cannot be exercised so as to circumvent the…

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

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

…on 132(1) read with Section 132 (5). When a search is conducted and valuable movable articles are found which are liable to be seized, then should be seized.” 18. She also relied upon the following observations in CIT v. Mrs. Sandhya P. Naik, [2002] 253 ITR 534 (Bom.): 2009:DHC:5083-DB difficulty in seizing the item which is liable to be seized. Where there is no such practical difficulty the officer is left with no other alternative but to seize the item, if is of the view that it represents undisclosed income. Power under Section 132(3) of the Act cannot be exercised so as to circumvent the…

C.I.T vs. Deepak Aggarwal

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/953/2008HC Delhi12 Aug 2008

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

For Appellant: Mr R. D. Jolly with Mr Paras ChaudharyFor Respondent: Mr O. S. Bajpai
Section 132Section 158Section 158B

…rawn on 14.09.1998 which was the last for the purpose of reckoning the commencement of the limitation period. The Court examined various decisions including Dr. C. Balakrishnan Nair v. CIT: 237 ITR 70 (Kerala High Court) and CIT v. Mrs. Sandhya P. Naik: 253 ITR 534 (Bombay High Court) and concluded as under:- ―A general consensus appears to have emerged among the High Courts to the effect that a search under Section 132 of the Act should be continuous and if it is discontinued and thereafter resumed, then there must be a valid explanation for the gap. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the f…

C.I.T vs. Deepak Aggarwal

Appeals are dismissed

ITA - 953 / 2008HC Delhi12 Aug 2008
For Appellant: Mr R. D. Jolly with Mr Paras ChaudharyFor Respondent: Mr O. S. Bajpai
Section 132Section 158Section 158B

…rawn on 14.09.1998 which was the last for the purpose of reckoning the commencement of the limitation period. The Court examined various decisions including Dr. C. Balakrishnan Nair v. CIT: 237 ITR 70 (Kerala High Court) and CIT v. Mrs. Sandhya P. Naik: 253 ITR 534 (Bombay High Court) and concluded as under:- ―A general consensus appears to have emerged among the High Courts to the effect that a search under Section 132 of the Act should be continuous and if it is discontinued and thereafter resumed, then there must be a valid explanation for the gap. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the f…

C.I.T vs. Mangla Marbles & Granite Pvt Ltd

Appeals are dismissed

ITA - 954 / 2008HC Delhi12 Aug 2008
For Appellant: Mr R. D. Jolly with Mr Paras ChaudharyFor Respondent: Mr O. S. Bajpai
Section 132Section 158Section 158B

…rawn on 14.09.1998 which was the last for the purpose of reckoning the commencement of the limitation period. The Court examined various decisions including Dr. C. Balakrishnan Nair v. CIT: 237 ITR 70 (Kerala High Court) and CIT v. Mrs. Sandhya P. Naik: 253 ITR 534 (Bombay High Court) and concluded as under:- ―A general consensus appears to have emerged among the High Courts to the effect that a search under Section 132 of the Act should be continuous and if it is discontinued and thereafter resumed, then there must be a valid explanation for the gap. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the f…

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

…ld that there must be some convincing reason for not resuming the search immediately and absent such convincing reasons, it was held that the second search was not legal or valid. 12. Similarly, in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mrs. Sandhya P. Naik, [2002] 253 ITR 534, it was held by the Bombay High Court that simply stating in the panchnama that the search is temporarily suspended does not entitle the authorised officer to keep the search proceedings alive by passing a restraint order under Section 132(3) of the Act. In arriving at this conclusion, the Bombay High Court placed reliance upon Sriram Jais…