Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection

93 ITR 505Supreme Court of India1974#1534 most cited

What is Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection authority for?

Evidence or material found during a search and seizure operation is admissible for assessment purposes, even if the search itself is subsequently held to be illegal or invalid.

74

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection · Section 132 Income Tax Act · Section 131 Income Tax Act · admissibility of evidence · illegal search and seizure · invalid search material · use of material from search · investigation powers of tax authorities · evidentiary value illegal search · material found during search

Sections most often in play

Section 131Section 132Section 143(2)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 292CSection 65BSection 131(1A)

Issues it is cited on

section 181illegal paymentsection 114(e)explanation to section 37section 65b(4)section 153a proceedingsprohibited by lawsection 131(1a)section 65section 158bdsection 65bdumb documents

Judgments citing Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection

M/S Gitanjali Promoters Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee dismissed

ITA 1742/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 153C

…A) also noted that assessment could be framed on the basis of the material obtained from the search even if search is made in contravention of the provisions of the Act and relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pooran Lal vs. CIT [1974] 93 ITR 505 (SC) . This ground of appeal of assessee was accordingly dismissed. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) also considered the issue of interest payment on PDCs in the light of incriminating material on record and held that interest payment of extension of period of PDCs are established on the basis of the seized documents. The Ld. CIT(A), however, noted that it 6 I…

Smt. Nirmala Nigam, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer-3(5), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 703/LKW/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Nirmala Nigam V. Income Tax Officer 3(5) 104/102, P. Road Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Afcpn4993C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri C. K. Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 20 02 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22 02 2019

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C. K. Singh, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 149(1)(b)

…m, 211 (Bom). 5. Asstt.CIT Vs. Rajesh Jhavri, [2007] 291 ITR 500/161 Taxman 316 (SC). ITA No.703/LKW/2017 Page 8 of 11 6. Chief Commissioner (Admn.) (U.P.) V. Kanhaiya Lal Kapoor, [2005] 147 Taxman, 12 (All). 7. Pooran Mal Vs. Director of Inspection, [1974) 93 ITR 505 (SC) 8. Deep Chand Daga Vs. ITO [1970] 77 ITR, 661 (MP) and, 9. Fisher Xomox Sanmar Ltd. V. Assistant CIT, [2007] 294 ITR 620 [2008] 168 Taxman 251 (Mad.) 14. None of the judgments referred to above have any connection to the point in issue even remotely. They relate either to the question of non-disclosure of income or failure on the part of the…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Kakade Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 854/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri HarikrishanFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar &
Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…ollowing decisions: i) Smt. Daxaben Kiritbhai Vs. Income Tax Officer, in for assessment year 2002-03 decided on 31.03.2011. ii) Dr. Pratap Singh Vs. Director of Enforcement, reported in 155 ITR 166 (SC) iii) Pooran Mal Vs. Director of Inspection, reported in 93 ITR 505 (SC) 6. Per contra, Shri Hari Krishan appearing on behalf of the assessee vehemently defended the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The ld. AR submitted that it is an undisputed fact that notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee during pendency of scrutiny assessment 5 A.Y.2010-11 proceedings. It is well a settled la…

Usha Agarwal, Agra vs. ITO 4(4), Agra

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 167/AGR/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 50C

…. Addl. CIT [2013] 30 Taxmann.com, 211 (Bom). 5. Asstt.CIT Vs. Rajesh Jhavri, [2007] 291 ITR 500/161 Taxman 316 (SC). 6. Chief Commissioner (Admn.) (U.P.) V. Kanhaiya Lal Kapoor, [2005] 147 Taxman, 12 (All). 7. Pooran Mal Vs. Director of Inspection, [1974) 93 ITR 505 (SC) 8. Deep Chand Daga Vs. ITO [1970] 77 ITR, 661 (MP) and, 9. Fisher Xomox Sanmar Ltd. V. Assistant CIT, [2007] 294 ITR 620 [2008] 168 Taxman 251 (Mad.) 14. None of the judgments referred to above have any connection to the point in issue even remotely. They relate either to the question of non-disclosure of income or failure on the part of t…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. K.G. Finvests Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and

ITA 6759/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2004-05 Acit, Vs. K.G. Finvest Pvt. Ltd., 10, 3Rd Floor, Satya Niketan, Central Circle-13, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaack4032H Assessment Year : 2004-05 K.G. Finvest Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, 10, 3Rd Floor, Satya Niketan, Central Circle-13, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaack4032H Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Shri Sumit Lalchandani & Ms Ananya Kapoor, Advocates Deptt. By : Shri Naveen Chandra, Cit, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor
Section 132Section 132ASection 139Section 142Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 153Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2004-05 ACIT, Vs. K.G. Finvest Pvt. Ltd., 10, 3rd Floor, Satya Niketan, Central Circle-13, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAACK4032H Assessment Year : 2004-05 K.G. Finvest Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ACIT, 10, 3rd Floor, Satya Niketan, Central Circle-13, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAACK4032H Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Shri Sumit Lalchandani & Ms Ananya Kapoor, Advocates Deptt. By : Shri Naveen Chandra, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 25.04.2017 Date of Pronouncement…

K.G. Finvest Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and

ITA 6662/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2004-05 Acit, Vs. K.G. Finvest Pvt. Ltd., 10, 3Rd Floor, Satya Niketan, Central Circle-13, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaack4032H Assessment Year : 2004-05 K.G. Finvest Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, 10, 3Rd Floor, Satya Niketan, Central Circle-13, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaack4032H Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Shri Sumit Lalchandani & Ms Ananya Kapoor, Advocates Deptt. By : Shri Naveen Chandra, Cit, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor
Section 132Section 132ASection 139Section 142Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 153Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2004-05 ACIT, Vs. K.G. Finvest Pvt. Ltd., 10, 3rd Floor, Satya Niketan, Central Circle-13, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAACK4032H Assessment Year : 2004-05 K.G. Finvest Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ACIT, 10, 3rd Floor, Satya Niketan, Central Circle-13, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAACK4032H Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Shri Sumit Lalchandani & Ms Ananya Kapoor, Advocates Deptt. By : Shri Naveen Chandra, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 25.04.2017 Date of Pronouncement…

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

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4513/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

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

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

…f appraisal and merits and not a question to be examined and answered in these writ petitions. The view, we have taken finds support from the decisions of the Supreme Court in ITO v. Seth Bros. [1969] 74 ITR 836 and Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection [1974] 93 ITR 505 (SC). Reference can also be made to the decision of this court in CITv. S. K. Katyal [2009] 308 ITR 168/177 Taxman 380 wherein the expression 'panchnama' was elucidated and explained in the following words:— "15. These provisions demonstrate that a search and seizure under the said Act has to be carried out in the presence of at least two respect…

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

…f appraisal and merits and not a question to be examined and answered in these writ petitions. The view, we have taken finds support from the decisions of the Supreme Court in ITO v. Seth Bros. [1969] 74 ITR 836 and Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection [1974] 93 ITR 505 (SC). Reference can also be made to the decision of this court in CITv. S. K. Katyal [2009] 308 ITR 168/177 Taxman 380 wherein the expression 'panchnama' was elucidated and explained in the following words:— "15. These provisions demonstrate that a search and seizure under the said Act has to be carried out in the presence of at least two respect…

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

…f appraisal and merits and not a question to be examined and answered in these writ petitions. The view, we have taken finds support from the decisions of the Supreme Court in ITO v. Seth Bros. [1969] 74 ITR 836 and Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection [1974] 93 ITR 505 (SC). Reference can also be made to the decision of this court in CITv. S. K. Katyal [2009] 308 ITR 168/177 Taxman 380 wherein the expression 'panchnama' was elucidated and explained in the following words:— "15. These provisions demonstrate that a search and seizure under the said Act has to be carried out in the presence of at least two respect…

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, बी, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी संजय अरोड़ा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member ITA NO.2183/Mum/ 2013 Assessment Years:2004-05 M/s Balalji Universal vs DCIT, Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-40, C-71/75, 7th Floor, Room No.653, 6th Floor, Mittal Tower, Aayakar Bhavan Nariman Point, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No.AABCL0236H ITA NOs.2184 to 2186/Mum/2013 Assessment Years:2005-0…

Hassan Ali Khan, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4156/MUM/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. No.

For Appellant: None (written submissions)For Respondent: Shri Girish Dave &
Section 153A

…documents with the Revenue to form a reason to believe u/s. 132 of the Act. There can be in any case no presumption that the same has been obtained by ED illegally or without following the due process of law. The apex court in Pooran Mal vs. DIT (Inv.) [1974] 93 ITR 505 (SC) clarified that the test of admissibility of evidence under the Indian jurisprudence lies in its relevancy, so that unless there is an express or necessarily implied prohibition in the Constitution or other law, evidence obtained as a result of illegal search or seizure is not liable to be shut out. The reliability of the document cannot be do…

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Hyderabad vs. M/s. Hyderabad Race Club

ITTA/312/2013HC Telangana30 Jul 2013

Comm.of Income Tax Bangalore vs. Navabharat Enterprises Hyd

In the result, Income Tax Appeal No

ITTA/3/2000HC Telangana02 Jan 2012

Bench: This Court & Hence Both Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Decided By This Common Judgment. 2. Sri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Rahul Agarwal, Advocate Have Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Sri Manish Goel, Advocate Has Put In Appearance On Behalf Of Revenue. 3. Revenue'S Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law:- (1)Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Tribunal Was Right In Holding That Authorization For Search

For Appellant: - M/S Verma Roadways Through its Partner R.K.VermaFor Respondent: - Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
Section 132Section 158Section 260A

…ith the requirements of Act and Rules. It is for the officer making search, to exercise his judgment and seize or not to seize any documents or books of account. 18 38. In Pooran Mal Etc. vs. Director of Inspection(Investigation) of Income Tax Mayur, (1974) 93 ITR 505 (SC) constituted validity of Section 132 was challenged. While upholding its validity Court observed:-Court held that it is a well-known fact of our economic life that huge sums of unaccounted money are in circulation endangering its very fabric. In a country which has adopted high rates, of taxation, a major portion of unaccounted mo…

Income Tax Officer vs. U.K.Mahapatra & Co

The appeal is disposed of with the aforementioned directions

C.A. No.-005067-005067 - 2009Supreme Court29 Jul 2009
Section 132Section 133A

…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 th…