← All Phrases

“panchnama”

Search & SeizureSection 132Section 1321,050 judgments

The decision most relied on for panchnama is 3. CIT v. ASHOK KUMAR SONI (262 ITR 633), cited in 101 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on panchnama

3. CIT v. ASHOK KUMAR SONI
262 ITR 633 · 2003 · High Court
101
citing judgments

This case is cited for the proposition that oral admissions made during the course of a search can be considered as evidence.

B Kishore Kumar v. DCIT
229 Taxmann 614 · 2015 · High Court
100
citing judgments

A retracted statement made during a search under section 132(4) carries no weight and is rejected, especially when the genuineness of purchases is disproved.

Pr. CIT v. Ram Avtar Verma
395 ITR 252 · 2017 · High Court
95
citing judgments

Additions to income made in search assessments, particularly under Sections 153A or 153C, are not justified if no incriminating material is recovered during the search operation itself.

VLS Finance Ltd. v. CIT (Del)
289 ITR 286 · 2007 · High Court
72
citing judgments

The last panchnama prepared in respect of the last authorization is relevant for computing the limitation period for search assessments.

552 (SC) Zaveri Diamonds v. CIT 11-12 3
118 Taxmann.com 166 · 2020 · High Court
62
citing judgments

The court considers the evidentiary value of unaudited books and loose papers when assessing income, particularly concerning trade creditors and their verification.

Mumbai), ACIT v. Katrina Rosemary Turcotte
83 Taxmann.com 6 · 2017 · ITAT
58
citing judgments

Evidence is critically important to corroborate entries found in seized material, especially when they indicate payments or loan/interest transactions. Specific reference to the actual transfer of money from a third party to the named recipient is required.

Jindal Stainless Ltd. v. ACIT, CC-6
120 ITD 301 · 2009 · ITAT
30
citing judgments

Assessments framed under section 153A are invalid if a valid search warrant under section 132 was not issued in the name of the assessee. Such assessments are void-ab-initio.

Anil Minda v. CIT
148 Taxmann.com 407 · 2023 · Supreme Court
22
citing judgments

The limitation period for completing a search and seizure assessment must be calculated from the date of the final panchanama, which signifies the conclusion of the search proceedings. Multiple visits or temporary suspensions during search operations do not extend this period.

Judgments citing panchnama

Leshark Global LLP, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals for A

ITA 3177/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 56Section 69

separate, independent Income Tax authorities. It is also an undisputed fact that assessee's name does not appear in the search warrants or panchnamas of those searches. Accordingly, it has been vehemently argued before us that any reference to those documents cannot be construed as incriminating material found ... assessment orders which could suggest any such undisclosed income. He also stated that physical presence of many Revenue Officers as per the Panchnamas for the 6 days (from 06/10/2017 to 11/10/2017) in the premises of the assessee without having found any material needing examination and confrontation with the assessee itself

Tin Tar Retail Corp, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 6483/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

income as in the original returns. During the course of search, Department took the back-up of ERP server data as noted in the panchnama. 4.2. During the course of assessment proceedings, ld. Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish reconciliation of sales as per ERP data extracted during ... search conducted on the assessee. As already noted in the facts above, Department took the backup of ERP server as noted in the panchnama. The said ERP server contains books of accounts maintained by the assessee using software namely, NAVISON which is an ERP system. The present assessment years under

Tin Tar Retail Corp, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-4(2), Mumbai

ITA 6480/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

income as in the original returns. During the course of search, Department took the back-up of ERP server data as noted in the panchnama. 4. 2. During the course of assessment proceedings, ld. Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish reconciliation of sales as per ERP data extracted during ... search conducted on the assessee. As already noted in the facts above, Department took the backup of ERP server as noted in the panchnama. The said ERP server contains books of accounts maintained by the assessee using software namely, NAVISON which is an ERP system. The present assessment years under

Tin Tar Retail Corp, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 6479/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

income as in the original returns. During the course of search, Department took the back-up of ERP server data as noted in the panchnama. 4.2. During the course of assessment proceedings, ld. Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish reconciliation of sales as per ERP data extracted during ... search conducted on the assessee. As already noted in the facts above, Department took the backup of ERP server as noted in the panchnama. The said ERP server contains books of accounts maintained by the assessee using software namely, NAVISON which is an ERP system. The present assessment years under

Tin Tar Retail Corp, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 6478/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

income as in the original returns. During the course of search, Department took the back-up of ERP server data as noted in the panchnama. 4.2. During the course of assessment proceedings, ld. Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish reconciliation of sales as per ERP data extracted during ... search conducted on the assessee. As already noted in the facts above, Department took the backup of ERP server as noted in the panchnama. The said ERP server contains books of accounts maintained by the assessee using software namely, NAVISON which is an ERP system. The present assessment years under

Shorya Trading Company Pvt Ltd, Karnal vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Karnal

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 815/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

Counsel submitted that the search was never initiated on the assessee as evident from the report of the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) and Panchnama in the said case. Hence, proceedings initiated under section 153A of the Act, in these cases, were not justified. Accordingly, he prayed for quashing the impugned orders ... been held that the search under section 132(1) of the Act was not imitated on the assessee as there was no panchnama drawn in this regard. Hence, notice issued under section 153A of the Act was quashed. The Ld. Counsel drew our attention to the relevant part

Shorya Trading Company Pvt Ltd, Karnal vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Karnal

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 814/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

Counsel submitted that the search was never initiated on the assessee as evident from the report of the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) and Panchnama in the said case. Hence, proceedings initiated under section 153A of the Act, in these cases, were not justified. Accordingly, he prayed for quashing the impugned orders ... been held that the search under section 132(1) of the Act was not imitated on the assessee as there was no panchnama drawn in this regard. Hence, notice issued under section 153A of the Act was quashed. The Ld. Counsel drew our attention to the relevant part

Shorya Trading Company Pvt Ltd, Karnal vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Karnal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 813/DEL/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.813/Del./2025, A.Y. 2008-09 Shorya Trading Company Assistant Commissioner Private Limited, Oswal Estate, Of Income Tax, Village: Dutail, Vs. Central Circle Karnal, District Karnal-132037 Karnal, Haryana Pan: Aakcs0778A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Ved Jain, Advocate Sh. Pawan Garg, Ca Ms. Ishika Dua, Ca Respondent By Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal Of The Assessee For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2008-09 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.01.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurugram [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

learned AO is bad and liable to be quashed in the absence of issue of any valid search warrant and panchnama for conducting search under section 132 of the Act. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts ... Counsel submitted that the search was never initiated on the assessee as evident from the report of the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) and Panchnama in the said case. Hence, proceedings initiated under section 153A of the Act, in this case, were not justified. Accordingly, he prayed for quashing the impugned order

ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Focus Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2273/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Agarwal, AR &For Respondent: Ms Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 68

company Sh. Pradeep Kumar has seen the warrant, signed the warrant and was present throughout the search procedure. He has also signed the panchnama where name of the assessee company M/s Focus Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. was duly mentioned, it is not required that incriminating documents related to the company must ... signatures of Shri Pradeep Kumar for two companies and not for assessee. 9.2 Then, at page No.112 of the paper book, there is a panchnama wherein the names of these parties are mentioned. This Panchnama mentions that Mr. Virender Pal Kandhari/Pradeep Kumar were present at the time of search

ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Focus Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2272/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Agarwal, AR &For Respondent: Ms Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 68

company Sh. Pradeep Kumar has seen the warrant, signed the warrant and was present throughout the search procedure. He has also signed the panchnama where name of the assessee company M/s Focus Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. was duly mentioned, it is not required that incriminating documents related to the company must ... signatures of Shri Pradeep Kumar for two companies and not for assessee. 9.2 Then, at page No.112 of the paper book, there is a panchnama wherein the names of these parties are mentioned. This Panchnama mentions that Mr. Virender Pal Kandhari/Pradeep Kumar were present at the time of search

ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Focus Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2271/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Agarwal, AR &For Respondent: Ms Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 68

company Sh. Pradeep Kumar has seen the warrant, signed the warrant and was present throughout the search procedure. He has also signed the panchnama where name of the assessee company M/s Focus Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. was duly mentioned, it is not required that incriminating documents related to the company must ... signatures of Shri Pradeep Kumar for two companies and not for assessee. 9.2 Then, at page No.112 of the paper book, there is a panchnama wherein the names of these parties are mentioned. This Panchnama mentions that Mr. Virender Pal Kandhari/Pradeep Kumar were present at the time of search

DCIT Central Circle-27, New Delhi vs. Jasmine Buildmart Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 1268/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Vs Jasmine Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-27, 406, Elegance Tower-8, New Delhi. Jsola District Centre, New Delhi – 110 025. Pan: Aaccj5119J Co No.34/Del/2023 (Ita No.1268/Del/2020) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jasmine Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 406, Elegance Tower-8, Central Circle-27, Jsola District Centre, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 025. Pan: Aaccj5119J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, Ca; Shri Anmol Jha, Advocate; & Ms Rinki Sharma, Itp. Revenue By : Shri Daya Inder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 22.11.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon Co No.34/Del/2020 (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.44/Cit(A)(C)/Ggn/2014-15 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 24.03.2014 Passed U/S 153B(1)(B) R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The Dcit, Central Circle-I, Faridabad (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). The Assessee Has Also Filed The Cross Objections.

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Daya Inder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 153CSection 253

24/03/2014 is void ab initio and bad in law because: (i) The assessee was never searched as no panchnama was ever drawn in its name in any premises. (ii) The Revenue has made the impugned assessment with the sole presumption that there was a search on the assessee and then ... found in the possession of the assessee. Therefore, assessment should have been completed u/s 153C of the Act. After going through the Panchnama prepared at the time of search, copy of which is made available at page 153 of the PB, it is evident that the search was not conducted

Shailesh Goyal, Tonk vs. ACIT, Centre Circle Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 496/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

search shall be deemed to have been executed, - (a) in the case of search, on the conclusion of search as recorded in the last panchnama drawn in relation to any person in whose case the warrant of authorisation has been issued; or (b) in the case of requisition under section

ACIT Cental Circle 25 New Delhi, Delhi vs. Sanjay Jain, Delhi

ITA 5102/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Pavan Ved, Adv., Sh. Mohit Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 263

mentioned. 19. The Ld.AR further argued that the contention of the Ld. DR that the Warrant no. 7263 dated 06.02.2019 and its respective Panchnama forms part & parcel of the assessment records and therefore, the same cannot be termed as “additional evidence” as the said documents were already lying ... arguments raised by the Ld. DR so far as that the Ld. PCIT was not in the possession of the Search Warrant and Panchnama as it is the duty of the Ld. PCIT to examine each & every document of the completed assessment record before passing any order

ACIT Cental Circle 25 New Delhi, Delhi vs. Sanjay Jain, Delhi

ITA 5101/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Pavan Ved, Adv., Sh. Mohit Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 263

mentioned. 19. The Ld.AR further argued that the contention of the Ld. DR that the Warrant no. 7263 dated 06.02.2019 and its respective Panchnama forms part & parcel of the assessment records and therefore, the same cannot be termed as “additional evidence” as the said documents were already lying ... arguments raised by the Ld. DR so far as that the Ld. PCIT was not in the possession of the Search Warrant and Panchnama as it is the duty of the Ld. PCIT to examine each & every document of the completed assessment record before passing any order

ACIT Central Circle 25 New Delhi, Delhi vs. Sanjay Jain, Delhi

ITA 5100/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Pavan Ved, Adv., Sh. Mohit Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 263

mentioned. 19. The Ld.AR further argued that the contention of the Ld. DR that the Warrant no. 7263 dated 06.02.2019 and its respective Panchnama forms part & parcel of the assessment records and therefore, the same cannot be termed as “additional evidence” as the said documents were already lying ... arguments raised by the Ld. DR so far as that the Ld. PCIT was not in the possession of the Search Warrant and Panchnama as it is the duty of the Ld. PCIT to examine each & every document of the completed assessment record before passing any order

ACIT Cental Circle 25 New Delhi, Delhi vs. Sanjay Jain, Delhi

ITA 5099/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Pavan Ved, Adv., Sh. Mohit Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 263

mentioned. 19. The Ld.AR further argued that the contention of the Ld. DR that the Warrant no. 7263 dated 06.02.2019 and its respective Panchnama forms part & parcel of the assessment records and therefore, the same cannot be termed as “additional evidence” as the said documents were already lying ... arguments raised by the Ld. DR so far as that the Ld. PCIT was not in the possession of the Search Warrant and Panchnama as it is the duty of the Ld. PCIT to examine each & every document of the completed assessment record before passing any order

ACIT Cental Circle 25 New Delhi, Delhi vs. Sanjay Jain, Delhi

ITA 5098/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Pavan Ved, Adv., Sh. Mohit Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 263

mentioned. 19. The Ld.AR further argued that the contention of the Ld. DR that the Warrant no. 7263 dated 06.02.2019 and its respective Panchnama forms part & parcel of the assessment records and therefore, the same cannot be termed as “additional evidence” as the said documents were already lying ... arguments raised by the Ld. DR so far as that the Ld. PCIT was not in the possession of the Search Warrant and Panchnama as it is the duty of the Ld. PCIT to examine each & every document of the completed assessment record before passing any order

ACIT Cental Circle 25 New Delhi, Delhi vs. Sanjay Jain, Delhi

ITA 5097/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Pavan Ved, Adv., Sh. Mohit Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 263

mentioned. 19. The Ld.AR further argued that the contention of the Ld. DR that the Warrant no. 7263 dated 06.02.2019 and its respective Panchnama forms part & parcel of the assessment records and therefore, the same cannot be termed as “additional evidence” as the said documents were already lying ... arguments raised by the Ld. DR so far as that the Ld. PCIT was not in the possession of the Search Warrant and Panchnama as it is the duty of the Ld. PCIT to examine each & every document of the completed assessment record before passing any order

ACIT Central Circle 25 New Delhi, Delhi vs. Sanjay Jain, Delhi

ITA 5088/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Pavan Ved, Adv., Sh. Mohit Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 263

mentioned. 19. The Ld.AR further argued that the contention of the Ld. DR that the Warrant no. 7263 dated 06.02.2019 and its respective Panchnama forms part & parcel of the assessment records and therefore, the same cannot be termed as “additional evidence” as the said documents were already lying ... arguments raised by the Ld. DR so far as that the Ld. PCIT was not in the possession of the Search Warrant and Panchnama as it is the duty of the Ld. PCIT to examine each & every document of the completed assessment record before passing any order