Section 251 — Copying, extraction, retention and release of books of account and documents seized or requisitioned. Successor to s.132 of the 1961 Act.
Sub-section (1) requires an authorised officer who has no jurisdiction over the searched person to hand the seized or requisitioned assets and material to the Assessing Officer who does have jurisdiction, within one hundred and eighty days from the date the search under section 247 is initiated or the requisition under section 248 is made, and that officer then exercises the powers in sub-sections (2) and (3). Sub-section (2) gives the person from whose custody the material was taken a right, on application, to make copies or take extracts, in the presence of the authorised officer or a person empowered by him, at the place and time the officer appoints. Sub-section (3) sets the retention period: assets and material may be kept up to one month from the end of the quarter in which the assessment, reassessment or recomputation order is made under section 270(10), 271, 279 or 294(1)(c), and beyond that only on reasons recorded in writing and approval of the approving authority. Sub-section (4) caps even approved retention at thirty days from completion of all proceedings under the 1961 Act or this Act for the relevant years, and sub-section (5) lets a person legally entitled to the property object to the approval by applying to the Board, which may pass such orders as it thinks fit after hearing him.
Why it is there
Seized material cannot be held indefinitely: the section attaches an outer date to every stage — transfer to the jurisdictional officer, retention after assessment, and retention after all proceedings end — and gives the owner both access to copies while it is held and a route to the Board to challenge extended retention.
Who it applies to
The authorised officer referred to in section 247(1)
The Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the searched or requisitioned person
The person from whose custody the material was seized or requisitioned
A person legally entitled to the seized or requisitioned assets and material
The approving authority
The Board
The figures, and what each one turns on
Read the condition in the same row. A figure quoted without it is a wrong answer with a citation attached.
What
Figure
The condition on it
Where
Time to hand seized or requisitioned material to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer
180 days
Only where the authorised officer has no jurisdiction over the person; counted from the date the search is initiated under section 247 or the requisition is made under section 248
251(1)
Ordinary retention period for seized or requisitioned assets and material
1 month from the end of the quarter in which the assessment, reassessment or recomputation order is made
Order under section 270(10), 271, 279 or 294(1)(c); retention beyond this needs reasons in writing and the approving authority's approval
251(3)(a) and (b)
Outer limit on retention with approval
30 days from completion of all proceedings
Proceedings under the Income-tax Act, 1961 or this Act for the years to which the seized or requisitioned material is relevant
251(4)
What this means in practice
If your books and documents have been seized, you can apply to the authorised officer for copies or extracts — but the officer fixes the place and time and you take them in his presence, so plan for supervised access rather than release of the originals. Track two dates: one month from the end of the quarter in which your assessment order is passed, after which retention needs written reasons and the approving authority's approval, and thirty days from the completion of all proceedings for the relevant years, after which retention cannot be allowed at all. If retention is extended, the objection goes to the Board, with a right to be heard, not to the officer who approved it.
An example
Illustrative only, and invented for this page. The figures are chosen to show the rule biting, not taken from any real matter.
A search is initiated on 10 May and books and jewellery are seized by an authorised officer who has no jurisdiction over the person searched; he must hand everything to the Assessing Officer who does have jurisdiction within one hundred and eighty days of that date. In the meantime the person searched can apply under sub-section (2), but only for copies or extracts, taken in the presence of the officer at a place and time the officer appoints — the sub-section gives no right to the originals back. If the assessment order is later made on 20 August, ordinary retention runs to one month from the end of that quarter, that is to 31 October. Holding the material past that date needs reasons recorded in writing and the approving authority’s approval, and even then sub-section (4) cuts retention off thirty days after all proceedings for the relevant years are complete.
Where you meet this section
After a search under section 247 or a requisition under section 248: in the application to the authorised officer for copies of what was taken, and in the approval that extends retention beyond the ordinary period. If you object to that approval, sub-section (5) sends you to the Board — not to the approving authority — and the Board must give you a hearing before passing such orders as it thinks fit.
The words themselves
retain the assets and material seized or requisitioned, under section 247 or 248, up to one month from the end of the quarter in which the order of assessment or reassessment or recomputation is made
Section 251(3)(a), Income-tax Act, 2025.
What people get wrong
Reading the 180-day period as a general limit on holding seized material. It applies only to handing material over where the authorised officer lacks jurisdiction over the person.
Counting the ordinary retention period from the date of the assessment order. Sub-section (3)(a) runs one month from the end of the quarter in which the order is made.
Assuming the material is released automatically once assessment is over. Retention can continue on recorded reasons with the approving authority's approval, subject only to the thirty-day cap in sub-section (4).
Expecting the originals back on an application under sub-section (2). That sub-section gives only copies and extracts, taken in the presence of the authorised officer or his nominee.
Objecting to the approving authority. Sub-section (5) directs the objection to the Board.
What this replaced
The correspondence is the Income Tax Department’s own, from its comparison utility for the 1961 and 2025 Acts. A renumbering is the easy half; whether the words changed is the half that decides cases.
Rules of the Income-tax Rules, 2026 that work section 251. Where the rule’s own heading names the section we say so; the rest are marked on reading the rule, which is our derivation and not the department’s. A rule that serves the section silently and that we have missed will not appear here.
Rule 148 — Search and Seizure under section 247 — on reading the rule
A circular binds the department, not you and not a court. Every one below was written under the 1961 Act; it reaches this section because the department’s own concordance carries the provision it names to this one.
Circular No. 4/2021 — Clarifications on provisions of the direct tax vivad se vishwas act 2020 2021-03-23
Circular No. 10/2012, dated 31-12-2012 — Section 132, read with section 132A of the income-tax Act, 1961 - search & seizure - Assessment of preceding years in search cases 2012-12-31
Circular No. 753 — Explanatory Notes on Provisions Relating to the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 1997-06-10
A notification is made under a power the Act gives and, within that power, is law. These too were made under the 1961 Act and are placed here by the department’s concordance.
Read this before you rely on it. Every decision below was decided under the Income-tax Act, 1961. It appears here because it is tagged to a 1961 provision that the department’s own mapping carries to section 251. That is an inference we have drawn, not a holding on the new section: where the words changed in the move, the reasoning may not survive. Treat this as the place to start looking, not as authority on the 2025 Act.
CIT v Calcutta KnitwearsSupreme CourtHelps departmenttagged s.132 When must the satisfaction note be recorded before proceedings are taken against a third party?
CIT v S. Khader Khan SonSupreme CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.132(4) They recorded your statement in a survey. Can the addition rest on that alone?
CIT v Sinhgad Technical Education SocietySupreme CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.132 The seized documents say nothing about the years being assessed. Can s.153C still be used for them?
ITO v Seth BrothersSupreme CourtHelps departmenttagged s.132 The search party carted away all our books. Does the way a search was conducted make it illegal?
ITO v Vikram Sujitkumar BhatiaSupreme CourtHelps departmenttagged s.132 The search was before June 2015 but the notice came later. Which version of s.153C applies?
Manish Maheshwari v ACITSupreme CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.132 What has to happen before a search at someone else's premises can be used against you?
N.K. Proteins Ltd v DCITSupreme CourtHelps departmenttagged s.132 Can the whole of a bogus purchase be added, rather than a percentage?
P.R. Metrani v CITSupreme CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.132(4A) Can papers seized in a search be presumed true against me in the regular assessment?
PCIT v Abhisar Buildwell P LtdSupreme CourtCuts both waystagged s.132 Search assessment for a year already completed, but nothing incriminating was found. Can the officer still add?
PDIT (Investigation) v Laljibhai MandaliaSupreme CourtHelps departmenttagged s.132 Can I get a search warrant quashed by showing the department's material was too thin?
Pooran Mal v Director of InspectionSupreme CourtHelps departmenttagged s.132 The search on me was illegal. Can I stop the department using what it took?
Super Malls Pvt Ltd v PCITSupreme CourtHelps departmenttagged s.132 What if the same officer holds charge of both the searched person and you?
Vijay Krishnaswami v DDIT (Investigation)Supreme CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.132 The Settlement Commission accepted my disclosure. Can the department still prosecute me for evasion?
ACIT v Satish Kumar KeshriHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.132(1) The search on me turned up nothing but the AO still made additions for an old year. Can he?
Alishan Complex P Ltd v Initiating OfficerHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.132(4) The benami attachment rests on a retracted statement and they refused cross-examination. Is that evidence?
Anurag Bagaria v Income Tax DepartmentHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.132 After a search I filed revised returns giving up a capital gains claim and paid the tax. Can I still be prosecuted under s.276C(1) for wilful evasion?
CIT v Dhingra Metal WorksHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.132(4) A partner surrendered income during a survey and we have since reconciled the stock. Can we withdraw it?
CIT v Girish ChaudharyHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.132(4A) A seized loose sheet has the bare figure '48' on it and the officer has assessed Rs 48 lakhs. Can he read the scale into the entry like that?
CIT v Ratanlal Vyaparilal JainHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.132 Does the jewellery instruction explain the source of the gold, or only stop the department seizing it?
CIT v S.K. KatyalHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.132 The last panchnama only records the seals being broken and my keys being handed back. Does that date start the limitation clock?
CIT v Satya Narain PatniHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.132 The search party left our jewellery alone but the AO has still added part of it. Can he do both?
Dipen Laljibhai Mandalia v DGITHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.132 The department is justifying my search warrant with discrepancies it discovered after the satisfaction note was recorded. Can material found later…
FCS Manufacturing (India) Pvt Ltd v DDITHigh CourtCuts both waystagged s.132(9B) Your bank accounts are provisionally attached and the business cannot operate. Is there a way out short of paying?
Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v CITHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.132(4) I disclosed a large sum in the search statement and retracted two months later. Will the retraction hold?
PCIT v Anand Kumar Jain (HUF)High CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.132(4) The addition rests only on an entry operator's search statement. Is that enough to assess me?
PCIT v Best Infrastructure (India) P LtdHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.132 The share capital addition rests on a statement I was never allowed to cross-examine. Does it stand?
Paul Mathews and Sons v CITHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.132(4) Can the officer treat what I said during a survey as sworn evidence against me?
Pawan Kumar Goel v Union of IndiaHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.132 The officers came for a survey, converted it into a search the same day and took away the cash. Can I get that quashed?
Pramod Swarup Agarwal v PDIT (Inv)High CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.132 The authorised officer who searched us has now summoned us under s.131(1A). Can he?
Rajesh Gupta v ACITHigh CourtHelps departmenttagged s.132 It is well past 120 days since the search and they still hold my jewellery. Must they release it?
Sundaram Finance Ltd v ACITHigh CourtHelps departmenttagged s.132 The notice did not specify the default, but you clearly understood it. Does the defect still help you?
DCIT v ACE Infracity Developers P LtdITATHelps taxpayertagged s.132 My lenders are NBFCs that make hundreds of loans. How much of their own affairs do I have to prove?
Diach Chemicals and Pigments P Ltd v DCITITATHelps taxpayertagged s.132 The department says my purchases are bogus. Do the suppliers' returns and the input credit allowed on those invoices count for anything in the…
Garware Technical Fibres Ltd v DCITITATCuts both waystagged s.132 The addition rests on a pen drive seized in the search and no s.65B certificate was drawn at the time. Does that kill it?
Rameshchandra Balachand v JCIT (OSD)ITATHelps taxpayertagged s.132(4) The officer says my partner is a sleeping partner because she is not in the office every day. Can he disallow her remuneration?
Rashmi Jalan v ACITITATHelps taxpayertagged s.132(4) The 271AAB notice does not say which clause or what rate. Can the penalty survive?
Seo Lehenga House v DCITITATHelps taxpayertagged s.132(1) I have already offered the profit on the disputed transactions. Can the officer add the broker's commission on top under s.69C?
T.S. Kumarasamy v ACITITATCuts both waystagged s.132(4) In my block assessment the officer has treated loans recorded in my seized books as undisclosed income while calling those very books unreliable, and…
What this page does not tell you. It does not reproduce the section. Everything above was written from the section’s own text as the Income Tax Department publishes it — the text is here, and nothing here is advice on your facts. Where a figure matters, read the sub-section it comes from.
