I did not return a receipt because I believe it is not taxable yet. Can the Department search me on the footing that I have undisclosed income?
No, not on that basis alone. The Delhi High Court quashed a search authorisation and everything done under it. Undisclosed income means income liable to tax which the assessee has kept back in an effort to escape assessment, knowing it to be taxable. A failure to file a return or to disclose what the Department believes is taxable is not enough. The satisfaction note said only that the family had not been disclosing their true income and wealth, which answers neither clause (b) nor clause (c) of section 132(1). The cash, jewellery and documents seized were ordered returned within two weeks.
Decided by the High Court (Delhi High Court; B.N. Kirpal and Arun Kumar JJ. Judgment by Kirpal J) on 1991-11-04, reported as [1992] 194 ITR 32 (Delhi); 46 (1992) DLT 14; 1992 (22) DRJ 1. It bears on section 132(1)(c), section 132(1)(b), section 131, section 132(1), section 132, section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Search, Survey & Block Assessment and Reassessment & Reopening matters.
This is the leading case on what 'undisclosed income' means for a search, and it is the one to cite where the assessee has taken a considered position that a receipt is not chargeable. The petitioners had received enhanced land acquisition compensation which was under appeal on both title and quantum, and had left it out of their returns on the strength of Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust. The Court held that the Department's contrary belief about taxability could be no ground for a search. It also holds that the satisfaction note itself must show which sub-clause is relied on and the material behind it; the recommendations of subordinate officers do not supply what the authorising officer failed to record. And it separates section 131, which is the power to call for documents, from section 132, which is for cases where the location of the thing is unknown and it would not be handed over.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The first petitioner was a Senior Advocate of the Delhi High Court; the others were his wife, sons and daughter. They held bhumidari rights in Delhi land which was acquired; after a contest between the Gaon Sabha, the proprietors and the bhumidars, the Additional District Judge held the bhumidars entitled and enhanced the compensation, the petitioners' share being about Rs 28.77 crore. Appeals against both the entitlement and the enhancement were pending. The petitioners withdrew the money on furnishing bank guarantees and invested it in tax-free bonds and immovable property. They did not return it as income or wealth, relying on Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust, since the entitlement was not final. In March 1991 the Department made enquiries about a son's marriage expenses and about the compensation; the petitioners supplied the documents asked for, and a notice under section 131 was served. On 22 March 1991 the residence and an office were searched under section 132(1), and cash and jewellery were seized. The authorising note said only that the family had not been disclosing their true income and wealth. A Local Commissioner appointed by the Court found that the house the Department said was under demolition was intact.
A writ of mandamus issued quashing the authorisation and all further action taken under it, including the seizure of documents, cash and jewellery, which were to be returned within two weeks, with costs. On the facts no reasonable person could have concluded that clause (a), (b) or (c) of section 132(1) was attracted. Undisclosed income means income liable to be taxed which has not been disclosed in an effort to escape assessment, and non-disclosure imports an intention to hide the income or asset while knowing it to be taxable. Merely not filing a return or not disclosing what the Department believes to be taxable is not a ground for authorisation. The satisfaction note showed no basis for believing that the petitioners would not produce documents if summoned, which is what clause (b) requires, and no information supporting a belief that they held money or valuables representing undisclosed income under clause (c). The Court also held that the Act gives no power to arrest or to restrict movement, so preventing the first petitioner from going to court after his statement had been recorded amounted to confinement and was not permissible.
The Court read section 132 as an exceptional power. Following Motilal v Preventive Intelligence Officer, approved by the Supreme Court in Tarsem Kumar, it held that section 132 is meant for cases where the location of the thing is not known and where it would not ordinarily be handed over; where the location is known and the holder would produce it, neither search nor seizure is required, and section 131 is the appropriate power. It then construed 'undisclosed'. The word carries an element of intention: the assessee must be hiding something he knows to be taxable. Where the receipt has been left out because the assessee takes the view, on authority, that it is not yet chargeable, the Department's contrary belief cannot convert that into concealment. Turning to the note actually recorded, the Court held that it is the authorising officer's own satisfaction that must be examined, not the recommendations of his subordinates, and that the note must show which sub-clause it falls under and the material behind it. This note did neither: it spoke of discovering documents, which is the language of section 131, and used the word unaccounted only as a consequence of the officer's view that true income had not been disclosed, without identifying any information about cash or valuables. Since a search is a serious invasion of privacy, section 132(1) is strictly construed. The Court applied H.L. Sibal and Dr N.L. Tahiliani, where reputation or rumour of a lavish lifestyle or high fees was held not to be tangible material, and noted here that the claim of Rs 80 lakh spent on a marriage rested on nothing in the file and that a section 133A survey had already produced a statement of the expenditure and its source.
A search which is conducted under Section 132 is a serious invasion into the privacy of a citizen.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo, not on that basis alone. The Delhi High Court quashed a search authorisation and everything done under it. Undisclosed income means income liable to tax which the assessee has kept back in an effort to escape assessment, knowing it to be taxable. A failure to file a return or to disclose what the Department believes is taxable is not enough. The satisfaction note said only that the family had not been disclosing their true income and wealth, which answers neither clause (b) nor clause (c) of section 132(1). The cash, jewellery and documents seized were ordered returned within two weeks. This was decided by the High Court (Delhi High Court; B.N. Kirpal and Arun Kumar JJ. Judgment by Kirpal J) and bears on section 132(1)(c), section 132(1)(b), section 131, section 132(1), section 132, section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as [1992] 194 ITR 32 (Delhi); 46 (1992) DLT 14; 1992 (22) DRJ 1. This is the leading case on what 'undisclosed income' means for a search, and it is the one to cite where the assessee has taken a considered position that a receipt is not chargeable. The petitioners had received enhanced land acquisition compensation which was under appeal on both title and quantum, and had left it out of their returns on the strength of Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust. The Court held that the Department's contrary belief about taxability could be no ground for a search. It also holds that the satisfaction note itself must show which sub-clause is relied on and the material behind it; the recommendations of subordinate officers do not supply what the authorising officer failed to record. And it separates section 131, which is the power to call for documents, from section 132, which is for cases where the location of the thing is unknown and it would not be handed over. If it applies to you, the first step is this: If you have left a receipt out of the return on a considered view that it is not chargeable, record that view contemporaneously, with the authority relied on; that is what makes it a disclosed position rather than concealment.
The first petitioner was a Senior Advocate of the Delhi High Court; the others were his wife, sons and daughter. They held bhumidari rights in Delhi land which was acquired; after a contest between the Gaon Sabha, the proprietors and the bhumidars, the Additional District Judge held the bhumidars entitled and enhanced the compensation, the petitioners' share being about Rs 28.77 crore. Appeals against both the entitlement and the enhancement were pending. The petitioners withdrew the money on furnishing bank guarantees and invested it in tax-free bonds and immovable property. They did not return it as income or wealth, relying on Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust, since the entitlement was not final. In March 1991 the Department made enquiries about a son's marriage expenses and about the compensation; the petitioners supplied the documents asked for, and a notice under section 131 was served. On 22 March 1991 the residence and an office were searched under section 132(1), and cash and jewellery were seized. The authorising note said only that the family had not been disclosing their true income and wealth. A Local Commissioner appointed by the Court found that the house the Department said was under demolition was intact. The matter was decided on 1991-11-04 by the High Court (Delhi High Court; B.N. Kirpal and Arun Kumar JJ. Judgment by Kirpal J). On those facts the High Court held as follows. A writ of mandamus issued quashing the authorisation and all further action taken under it, including the seizure of documents, cash and jewellery, which were to be returned within two weeks, with costs. On the facts no reasonable person could have concluded that clause (a), (b) or (c) of section 132(1) was attracted. Undisclosed income means income liable to be taxed which has not been disclosed in an effort to escape assessment, and non-disclosure imports an intention to hide the income or asset while knowing it to be taxable. Merely not filing a return or not disclosing what the Department believes to be taxable is not a ground for authorisation. The satisfaction note showed no basis for believing that the petitioners would not produce documents if summoned, which is what clause (b) requires, and no information supporting a belief that they held money or valuables representing undisclosed income under clause (c). The Court also held that the Act gives no power to arrest or to restrict movement, so preventing the first petitioner from going to court after his statement had been recorded amounted to confinement and was not permissible.
The Court read section 132 as an exceptional power. Following Motilal v Preventive Intelligence Officer, approved by the Supreme Court in Tarsem Kumar, it held that section 132 is meant for cases where the location of the thing is not known and where it would not ordinarily be handed over; where the location is known and the holder would produce it, neither search nor seizure is required, and section 131 is the appropriate power. It then construed 'undisclosed'. The word carries an element of intention: the assessee must be hiding something he knows to be taxable. Where the receipt has been left out because the assessee takes the view, on authority, that it is not yet chargeable, the Department's contrary belief cannot convert that into concealment. Turning to the note actually recorded, the Court held that it is the authorising officer's own satisfaction that must be examined, not the recommendations of his subordinates, and that the note must show which sub-clause it falls under and the material behind it. This note did neither: it spoke of discovering documents, which is the language of section 131, and used the word unaccounted only as a consequence of the officer's view that true income had not been disclosed, without identifying any information about cash or valuables. Since a search is a serious invasion of privacy, section 132(1) is strictly construed. The Court applied H.L. Sibal and Dr N.L. Tahiliani, where reputation or rumour of a lavish lifestyle or high fees was held not to be tangible material, and noted here that the claim of Rs 80 lakh spent on a marriage rested on nothing in the file and that a section 133A survey had already produced a statement of the expenditure and its source. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "A search which is conducted under Section 132 is a serious invasion into the privacy of a citizen."
It was decided by the High Court on 1991-11-04 and is reported as [1992] 194 ITR 32 (Delhi); 46 (1992) DLT 14; 1992 (22) DRJ 1. Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 132(1)(c), section 132(1)(b), section 131, section 132(1), section 132, section 147, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. A writ of mandamus issued quashing the authorisation and all further action taken under it, including the seizure of documents, cash and jewellery, which were to be returned within two weeks, with costs. On the facts no reasonable person could have concluded that clause (a), (b) or (c) of section 132(1) was attracted. Undisclosed income means income liable to be taxed which has not been disclosed in an effort to escape assessment, and non-disclosure imports an intention to hide the income or asset while knowing it to be taxable. Merely not filing a return or not disclosing what the Department believes to be taxable is not a ground for authorisation. The satisfaction note showed no basis for believing that the petitioners would not produce documents if summoned, which is what clause (b) requires, and no information supporting a belief that they held money or valuables representing undisclosed income under clause (c). The Court also held that the Act gives no power to arrest or to restrict movement, so preventing the first petitioner from going to court after his statement had been recorded amounted to confinement and was not permissible. It arises in Search, Survey & Block Assessment and Reassessment & Reopening matters, on section 132(1)(c), section 132(1)(b), section 131, section 132(1), section 132, section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Delhi High Court; B.N. Kirpal and Arun Kumar JJ. Judgment by Kirpal J. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Ask for the satisfaction note and test it against the sub-clauses of section 132(1); a note that says only that true income has not been disclosed satisfies neither clause (b) nor clause (c). Answer every summons and produce every document asked for, and keep the record of having done so; the absence of any refusal was central here. Note that the recorded reasons are now protected from disclosure by statute, so plan the challenge around what can be shown from the surrounding facts rather than assuming the note will be produced.
Still good law. The construction of undisclosed income and the requirement that the satisfaction note itself disclose the sub-clause and the material remain the standard, and the source page records the decision as followed in later search cases. But the practical route it used is now constrained: the reasons recorded for an authorisation are protected from disclosure to any person, authority or the Appellate Tribunal by a later Explanation, so a court examining a satisfaction note as this Court did may no longer be possible in the same way. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The harvested page is clipped: about 12,900 characters from the middle are missing, covering part of the Court's discussion of the authorities on section 132(1) and the beginning of its construction of clause (c). The opening, the satisfaction note, the Court's construction of undisclosed income, its analysis of the note, and the operative order are all present. The batch line gave the year as 1992, which is the year of the report; the judgment is dated 4 November 1991 and that date is used. The text carries evident transcription errors, including 'assessed' for 'assessee' and sub-clause (e) for (c), which have not been reproduced here. The Court expressly declined to decide the allegations about the conduct of the raid, including the allegation of theft, since it was allowing the petition on the authorisation. The later Explanation on non-disclosure of recorded reasons was not verified against a source in this session. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
A writ of mandamus issued quashing the authorisation and all further action taken under it, including the seizure of documents, cash and jewellery, which were to be returned within two weeks, with costs. On the facts no reasonable person could have concluded that clause (a), (b) or (c) of section 132(1) was attracted. Undisclosed income means income liable to be taxed which has not been disclosed in an effort to escape assessment, and non-disclosure imports an intention to hide the income or asset while knowing it to be taxable. Merely not filing a return or not disclosing what the Department believes to be taxable is not a ground for authorisation. The satisfaction note showed no basis for believing that the petitioners would not produce documents if summoned, which is what clause (b) requires, and no information supporting a belief that they held money or valuables representing undisclosed income under clause (c). The Court also held that the Act gives no power to arrest or to restrict movement, so preventing the first petitioner from going to court after his statement had been recorded amounted to confinement and was not permissible.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
My return was only processed under 143(1). Does that stop the department reopening it later?
How much am I actually required to disclose — and can they reopen because the officer drew the wrong conclusion?
The sanctioning authority just wrote 'yes' and signed. Is that a sanction?
A reassessment was done in between. Does the two-year clock for s.263 restart from it?