Pushkar Narain Sarraf v. CIT

183 ITR 388High Court1990#9705 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2006 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 65BSection 69Section 69CSection 132(4)

Issues it is cited on

search and seizuresection 132section 13businessdocument

Judgments citing Pushkar Narain Sarraf v. CIT

NARESH ARORA,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3144/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumararti Garg, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 31, A – 19, Guru Ram Dass Nagar, Delhi. Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092. (Pan : Akupg4398A) Naresh Arora, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 31, A-061, 6Th Floor, Spaze Privy, Delhi. Sector 72, Sohna Road, Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aacpa3657P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, Advocate Shri Vaibhav Srivastava, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Order : 14.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 65BSection 69Section 69C

…21.04.2015]; (xiii) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC); (xiv) Paul Mathews & Sons v. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker.); (xv) CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC); (xvi) Pushkar Narain Sarraj v. CIT (1990) 183 ITR 388 (All.); (xvii) P.R. Metrani v. CIT, Bangalore (2006) 157 taxman 325 (SC); (xviii) CIT v. P.V. Kalyanasundaram (2007) 294 ITR 49 (SC); (xix) CIT v. Kanpur Coat Syndicate (1964) 53 ITR 225 (SC). 5. The same is rebutted by the Department by contending that it is an admitted piece of evidence on the basis of statement of Arti Garg and her husband…

ARIT GARG,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3143/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumararti Garg, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 31, A – 19, Guru Ram Dass Nagar, Delhi. Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092. (Pan : Akupg4398A) Naresh Arora, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 31, A-061, 6Th Floor, Spaze Privy, Delhi. Sector 72, Sohna Road, Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aacpa3657P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, Advocate Shri Vaibhav Srivastava, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Order : 14.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 65BSection 69Section 69C

…21.04.2015]; (xiii) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC); (xiv) Paul Mathews & Sons v. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker.); (xv) CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC); (xvi) Pushkar Narain Sarraj v. CIT (1990) 183 ITR 388 (All.); (xvii) P.R. Metrani v. CIT, Bangalore (2006) 157 taxman 325 (SC); (xviii) CIT v. P.V. Kalyanasundaram (2007) 294 ITR 49 (SC); (xix) CIT v. Kanpur Coat Syndicate (1964) 53 ITR 225 (SC). 5. The same is rebutted by the Department by contending that it is an admitted piece of evidence on the basis of statement of Arti Garg and her husband…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAJESTIC PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5579/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5231/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2005-06 Ita No. 5392/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2006-07 Ita No. 5579/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., Central Circle-2, 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7158E Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Shivani Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Singh, CIT DR
Section 132

…this case, all these elements are not present. 5. Regarding presumption contained in Sec 132(4A) cannot be pressed into service in this block assessment, reliance is placed on M/s. Rajpal Singh Ram Avtar Vs. ITO 39 TTJ (Del) 544, Pushkar Narain Saraf Vs. CIT 183 ITR 388 (All). 6. Further, In this regard, two points arise: First whether these noting on loose papers/notebook amount to be a books of accounts and the Second is what may be the source of these amounts because in the entire search proceedings, no unaccounted source of funds beyond the recorded transactions was found. 6.1 The question whether that han…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAJESTIC PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5392/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5231/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2005-06 Ita No. 5392/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2006-07 Ita No. 5579/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., Central Circle-2, 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7158E Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Shivani Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Singh, CIT DR
Section 132

…this case, all these elements are not present. 5. Regarding presumption contained in Sec 132(4A) cannot be pressed into service in this block assessment, reliance is placed on M/s. Rajpal Singh Ram Avtar Vs. ITO 39 TTJ (Del) 544, Pushkar Narain Saraf Vs. CIT 183 ITR 388 (All). 6. Further, In this regard, two points arise: First whether these noting on loose papers/notebook amount to be a books of accounts and the Second is what may be the source of these amounts because in the entire search proceedings, no unaccounted source of funds beyond the recorded transactions was found. 6.1 The question whether that han…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAJESTIC PROPERTIES (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5231/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5231/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2005-06 Ita No. 5392/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2006-07 Ita No. 5579/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., Central Circle-2, 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7158E Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Shivani Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Singh, CIT DR
Section 132

…this case, all these elements are not present. 5. Regarding presumption contained in Sec 132(4A) cannot be pressed into service in this block assessment, reliance is placed on M/s. Rajpal Singh Ram Avtar Vs. ITO 39 TTJ (Del) 544, Pushkar Narain Saraf Vs. CIT 183 ITR 388 (All). 6. Further, In this regard, two points arise: First whether these noting on loose papers/notebook amount to be a books of accounts and the Second is what may be the source of these amounts because in the entire search proceedings, no unaccounted source of funds beyond the recorded transactions was found. 6.1 The question whether that han…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S I.G. BUILDERS & PERMOTERS (P) LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4282/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S. I.G. Builders & Circle-12(2), Promoters (P) Ltd., New Delhi C-581, Defence Colony, New Delhi Pan :Aaaci1640K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…only those receipts which may amount to be income. Therefore where they assess a receipt, they must find it to be income and they cannot do assess they have some material to justify their findings. In Pushkar Narain Saraf Vs CIT [1990] 86 CTR (All) 110:[1990]183 ITR 388 (All): TC 61R. 433, the Court has held that provisions of section 132(4A) is available only for the limited purpose of seizure. In the course of block assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer label the entries as income under Provisions of Act or deeming Sections 68, 69, 69A and 69C etc. but the burden is on the Department to prove that the…

ACIT, CC-44, MUMBAI vs. SHILPA SUNIL MAJITHIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals and assessee’s cross objections are dismissed

ITA 5138/MUM/2009[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2016AY 1995-96
Section 268A

…elf and cannot intrude into any other provision of the Act. Similarly, the other provisions of the Act cannot interfere with the scheme or the working of section 132 or its provisions. Approving the decisions in the case of Pushkar Narain Saraf vs. CIT [1990] 183 ITR 388 (All) and Daya Chand vs. CIT [2001] 250 ITR 327 (Del), it held therefore that the presumption u/s. 132(4A) would not be available to the assessing authority for the purpose of framing the assessment under the Act, for which only the regular provisions would prevail. The said decision, as shall be evident, has a clear and direct bearing, in ratio,…

KASHINATH TAPURIAH,KOLKATTA vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty appeals for all the seven years under reference are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8339/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. Appellant Respondent A.Ys.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Karia &For Respondent: Shri Girish Dave &
Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…um)(SB), reproduced at para 31). The Hon’ble Apex Court in P. R. Metrani vs. CIT [2006] 287 ITR 209 (SC) had an occasion to consider the scope of the search and seizure proceedings under the Act. Approving the decisions in Pushkar Narain Sarraf vs. CIT [1990] 183 ITR 388 (All) and Daya Chand vs. CIT [2001] 250 ITR 327 (Del), and the reversing the decision in (A.Ys. 2001-02 to 2007-08) Kashinath Tapuriah vs. Dy. CIT CIT vs. P. R. Metrani (HUF) [2001] 251 ITR 244 (Kar), it clarified this scope to be very limited, i.e., restricted to a summary assessment toward retaining sufficient assets to meet the demand of tax a…

SHRI KASHINATH TAPURIAH,KOLKATTA vs. DY.CIT.C.C.2, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty appeals for all the seven years under reference are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3820/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. Appellant Respondent A.Ys.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Karia &For Respondent: Shri Girish Dave &
Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…um)(SB), reproduced at para 31). The Hon’ble Apex Court in P. R. Metrani vs. CIT [2006] 287 ITR 209 (SC) had an occasion to consider the scope of the search and seizure proceedings under the Act. Approving the decisions in Pushkar Narain Sarraf vs. CIT [1990] 183 ITR 388 (All) and Daya Chand vs. CIT [2001] 250 ITR 327 (Del), and the reversing the decision in (A.Ys. 2001-02 to 2007-08) Kashinath Tapuriah vs. Dy. CIT CIT vs. P. R. Metrani (HUF) [2001] 251 ITR 244 (Kar), it clarified this scope to be very limited, i.e., restricted to a summary assessment toward retaining sufficient assets to meet the demand of tax a…

P.R. METRANI vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

Appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-005673-005675 - 2002Supreme Court15 Nov 2006
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore
Section 132Section 132(5)Section 139(2)Section 143(2)Section 69C

…The assessee being aggrieved filed a further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (for short "The Tribunal"). The Tribunal relying upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Pushkar Narain Sarraf Vs. CIT, (1990) 183 ITR 388, on the scope of Section 132 (4A) held that the presumptions under Section 132 (4A) are confined to the framing of the order under Section 132 (5) only and are not available for framing the regular assessment. The Tribunal accepted the appeals, set aside the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as assessing authority exce…

P.R. METRANI vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

Appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-005673-005675 - 2002Supreme Court15 Nov 2006
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore
Section 132Section 132(5)Section 139(2)Section 143(2)Section 69C

…The assessee being aggrieved filed a further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (for short "The Tribunal"). The Tribunal relying upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Pushkar Narain Sarraf Vs. CIT, (1990) 183 ITR 388, on the scope of Section 132 (4A) held that the presumptions under Section 132 (4A) are confined to the framing of the order under Section 132 (5) only and are not available for framing the regular assessment. The Tribunal accepted the appeals, set aside the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as assessing authority exce…