Saravana Selvarathnam Retails (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

160 Taxmann.com 287High Court2024#8114 most cited

What is Saravana Selvarathnam Retails (P.) Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Compliance with the Digital Evidence Investigation Manual issued by the CBDT during search and seizure operations is mandatory, not optional, for the admissibility of electronic evidence.

14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2024 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Saravana Selvarathnam Retails · CIT · 2024 · digital evidence investigation manual · CBDT · search and seizure · electronic evidence · section 65A · section 65B · Indian Evidence Act

Also reported as

298 Taxmann 319339 CTR 10463 ITR 523

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 37Section 69ASection 69CSection 148Section 151Section 143(3)Section 148A

Issues it is cited on

section 65asection 282a(1)hundi transactionsection 282asection 140apurposive interpretationsection 62section 65b(4)section 65breal income theorysection 65section 140

Judgments citing Saravana Selvarathnam Retails (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

Purushotham Naidu Lekkala, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1726/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
Section 115BSection 132Section 153DSection 292CSection 4Section 65B

…आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद 'बी' बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad “B” Bench, Hyderabad श्री मंजूनाथ जी, माननीय लेखा सदस्य एवं श्री रवीश सूद, माननीय न्यायिक सदस्य SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1725 and 1726/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) 1. Leckon Industries Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. PAN : AABCL6748E 2. Purushotham Naidu Lekkala, R/o. Hyderabad. PAN : ABGPL4958H Vs. The ACIT/DCIT Central Circle – 3(2), Hyderabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellants) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) करदाता का प्रत…

DCIT, Mumbai vs. J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4593/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…ence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2024] 463 ITR 523 / 298 Taxman 319/ 339 CTR 10 (Mad.)(HC) held that it is mandatory to follow the Digital Evidence Investigation Manual issued by CBDT while conducting search and seizure and it is not optional. (Page 53 to 73 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 67-70 on page 70-71) 62 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. As per the Digital Evidence Investigation Manual issued by at para 2.7.3 on page 13…

DCIT CC 5-1, Mumbai vs. J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4591/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…Information Technology Act, 2000 is not complied with. The Assessee also relied on the decision of Supreme Court in Anwar P. V. v. P. K. Basheer, reported in (2014) 10 SCC 473 (SC) and Madras High Court in Saravana Selvarathnam Retails (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2024] 463 ITR 523 / 298 Taxman 319/ 339 CTR 10 (Mad.)(HC) to contend that requirements of sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act and digital evidence investigation manual are not complied with. It is thus contended that digital evidences have to be ignored while making the impugned addition. We are not inclined to accept this contention of the Assessee and out rightly rej…

DCIT CC 5 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4590/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…dence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2024] 463 ITR 523 / 298 Taxman 319/ 339 CTR 10 (Mad.)(HC) held that it is mandatory to follow the Digital Evidence Investigation Manual issued by CBDT while conducting search and seizure and it is not optional. (Page 53 to 73 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 67-70 on page 70-71) 61 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. As per the Digital Evidence Investigation Manual issued by at para 2.7.3 on page 13 i…

J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4153/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…ence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2024] 463 ITR 523 / 298 Taxman 319/ 339 CTR 10 (Mad.)(HC) held that it is mandatory to follow the Digital Evidence Investigation Manual issued by CBDT while conducting search and seizure and it is not optional. (Page 53 to 73 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 67-70 on page 70-71) 62 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. As per the Digital Evidence Investigation Manual issued by at para 2.7.3 on page 13…

J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4151/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…Information Technology Act, 2000 is not complied with. The Assessee also relied on the decision of Supreme Court in Anwar P. V. v. P. K. Basheer, reported in (2014) 10 SCC 473 (SC) and Madras High Court in Saravana Selvarathnam Retails (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2024] 463 ITR 523 / 298 Taxman 319/ 339 CTR 10 (Mad.)(HC) to contend that requirements of sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act and digital evidence investigation manual are not complied with. It is thus contended that digital evidences have to be ignored while making the impugned addition. We are not inclined to accept this contention of the Assessee and out rightly rej…

J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4150/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…Information Technology Act, 2000 is not complied with. The Assessee also relied on the decision of Supreme Court in Anwar P. V. v. P. K. Basheer, reported in (2014) 10 SCC 473 (SC) and Madras High Court in Saravana Selvarathnam Retails (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2024] 463 ITR 523 / 298 Taxman 319/ 339 CTR 10 (Mad.)(HC) to contend that requirements of sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act and digital evidence investigation manual are not complied with. It is thus contended that digital evidences have to be ignored while making the impugned addition. We are not inclined to accept this contention of the Assessee and out rightly rej…

J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai

ITA 4147/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…Information Technology Act, 2000 is not complied with. The Assessee also relied on the decision of Supreme Court in Anwar P. V. v. P. K. Basheer, reported in (2014) 10 SCC 473 (SC) and Madras High Court in Saravana Selvarathnam Retails (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2024] 463 ITR 523 / 298 Taxman 319/ 339 CTR 10 (Mad.)(HC) to contend that requirements of sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act and digital evidence investigation manual are not complied with. It is thus contended that digital evidences have to be ignored while making the impugned addition. We are not inclined to accept this contention of the Assessee and out rightly rej…

DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Chenai vs. C.Vijaya Baskar, Pudukottai

ITA 702/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri Nithyaesh Natraj, Vaibav R. VenkateshFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Srinivas (Sr. Standing Counsel for
Section 143(3)

…ras in the case of M/s Vetrivel Minerals vs. ACIT (129 Taxmann.com 126) also support the conclusion of Ld. CIT(A). We note that this decision has subsequently been followed by Hon’ble Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT (160 Taxmann.com 287; 23/02/2024). In this decision, Hon’ble Court held that the manual issued by the CBDT would be in the nature of orders, instructions and directions as prescribed u/s 119(1) of the Act and in such case, it is mandatory for the Department to follow it. It was further held that merely gathering electronic evidence was not sufficient rat…

DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Chenai vs. C.Vijaya Baskar, Pudukottai

In the result, ITA Nos.695 to 702/Chny/2023 stands dismissed

ITA 700/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.695/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.696/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.697/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.698/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.699/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.700/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.701/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 8. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.702/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit Shri C. Vijayabaskar बनाम/ Central Circle-2(1) #14/28-1, Sowrastra Street, Chennai. Illupur, Pudukottai-622 102. Vs.

For Appellant: S/Shri Nithyaesh Natraj, Vaibav R. VenkateshFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Srinivas (Sr. Standing Counsel for department)- Ld. Sr. Counsel
Section 143(3)

…of Madras in the case of M/s Vetrivel Minerals vs. ACIT (129 Taxmann.com 126) also support the conclusion of Ld. CIT(A). We note that this decision has subsequently been followed by Hon’ble Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT (160 Taxmann.com 287; 23/02/2024). In this decision, Hon’ble Court held that the manual issued by the CBDT would be in the nature of orders, instructions and directions as prescribed u/s 119(1) of the Act and in such case, it is mandatory for the Department to follow it. It was further held that merely gathering electronic evidence was not sufficient rather t…

DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Chenai vs. C.Vijaya Baskar, Pudukottai

In the result, ITA Nos.695 to 702/Chny/2023 stands dismissed

ITA 697/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.695/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.696/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.697/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.698/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.699/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.700/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.701/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 8. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.702/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit Shri C. Vijayabaskar बनाम/ Central Circle-2(1) #14/28-1, Sowrastra Street, Chennai. Illupur, Pudukottai-622 102. Vs.

For Appellant: S/Shri Nithyaesh Natraj, Vaibav R. VenkateshFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Srinivas (Sr. Standing Counsel for department)- Ld. Sr. Counsel
Section 143(3)

…of Madras in the case of M/s Vetrivel Minerals vs. ACIT (129 Taxmann.com 126) also support the conclusion of Ld. CIT(A). We note that this decision has subsequently been followed by Hon’ble Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT (160 Taxmann.com 287; 23/02/2024). In this decision, Hon’ble Court held that the manual issued by the CBDT would be in the nature of orders, instructions and directions as prescribed u/s 119(1) of the Act and in such case, it is mandatory for the Department to follow it. It was further held that merely gathering electronic evidence was not sufficient rather t…

DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Chenai vs. C.Vijaya Baskar, Pudukottai

In the result, ITA Nos.695 to 702/Chny/2023 stands dismissed

ITA 696/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri Nithyaesh Natraj, Vaibav R. VenkateshFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Srinivas (Sr. Standing Counsel for
Section 143(3)

…ras in the case of M/s Vetrivel Minerals vs. ACIT (129 Taxmann.com 126) also support the conclusion of Ld. CIT(A). We note that this decision has subsequently been followed by Hon’ble Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT (160 Taxmann.com 287; 23/02/2024). In this decision, Hon’ble Court held that the manual issued by the CBDT would be in the nature of orders, instructions and directions as prescribed u/s 119(1) of the Act and in such case, it is mandatory for the Department to follow it. It was further held that merely gathering electronic evidence was not sufficient rat…

DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Chenai vs. C.Vijaya Baskar, Pudukottai

In the result, ITA Nos.695 to 702/Chny/2023 stands dismissed

ITA 695/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri Nithyaesh Natraj, Vaibav R. VenkateshFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Srinivas (Sr. Standing Counsel for
Section 143(3)

…adras in the case of M/s Vetrivel Minerals vs. ACIT (129 Taxmann.com 126) also support the conclusion of Ld. CIT(A). We note that this decision has subsequently been followed by Hon’ble Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT (160 Taxmann.com 287; 23/02/2024). In this decision, Hon’ble Court held that the manual issued by the CBDT would be in the nature of orders, instructions and directions as prescribed u/s 119(1) of the Act and in such case, it is mandatory for the Department to follow it. It was further held that merely gathering electronic evidence was not sufficient rat…

Purushotham Naidu Lekkala, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 608/HYD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.608/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Purushotham Naidu Vs. A.C.I.T Lekkala Central Circle 3(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Abgpl4958H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri H Srinivasulu,Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Rahul Singhania, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 30/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 11/06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri H Srinivasulu,AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Rahul Singhania, DR
Section 119Section 132Section 139(4)Section 153ASection 65B(4)

…a High Court in the case of The State of Telangana vs. P Govind Reddy and 10 Others in W.A No.1105 of 2018 . 5.1 Further, relying on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails (P) Ltd vs. CIT (A) reported in (2024) 160 Taxmann.com 287 (Mad.) dated 23.02.2024, the Ld. DR submitted that, even if the instruction of the CBDT manual are not followed, if the electronic data obtained are supported by corroborative evidence, addition can be made on the basis of such electronic data. He also submitted that, in this case, the addition has been made on account of interest payable…