“panchnama”

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.