The officers came in on a survey, I cooperated and showed them everything, and then they turned it into a search and took away the cash. Can they do that?
No, not on this record. The Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the action. Section 133A(4) forbids an income-tax authority acting under that section from removing any cash, stock or valuable article from the premises, and it is only where the person refuses or evades cooperation that section 133A(6) lets the authority fall back on the powers in section 131(1). Here the assessee had voluntarily disclosed and handed over Rs 2,09,89,090, the department produced no material to show non-cooperation, and no satisfaction was ever recorded for converting the survey into a search. The summons under section 131 was also vague, specifying nothing that was required of him. The action was quashed with consequential benefits.
Decided by the High Court (High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh; Mahesh Grover J and Lalit Batra J) on 2019-05-22, reported as CWP No. 8261 of 2017, Punjab and Haryana High Court. It bears on section 133A, section 133A(4), section 133A(6), section 131(1), section 131(1A), section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Search, Survey & Block Assessment and Evidence & Burden of Proof matters.
Conversion of a survey into a search is a recurring grievance and is difficult to challenge afterwards, because everything the department relies on has by then been seized. This judgment identifies the two things the department must be able to show and usually cannot. First, cooperation: section 133A(6) is the only bridge from survey to the compulsive powers, and it opens only on refusal or evasion, so where the assessee produced the books, handed over the keys and disclosed the cash, there is no bridge. Second, recorded satisfaction: even if section 131(1A) is invoked, the officer must state his reasons for suspecting that income has been or is likely to be concealed, and where the summons issued was for a survey, it was imperative to record that suspicion before going further. The Court treats the absence of a recorded reason as fatal, saying that in a procedure that can often turn draconian the safeguard of recording reasons must be observed. It also collects the authority on the limits of section 131 and on strict construction of section 132(1).
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
On 6 September 2016 at about 11.30 a.m. officials entered the petitioner's business premises at SCO No. 76, MDC, Sector 5, Panchkula. He was, he said, asked to sign documents without being told their contents; on his questioning he was given a summons of the same date under section 131 stating that the officials wished to carry out a survey under section 133A. The summons converted his premises into a camp office and required him to attend and give evidence or produce books of account on pain of a penalty of Rs 10,000 for each default; at the foot it said only 'Books of accounts/documents specified'. His case was that he and his staff cooperated fully, producing the books, handing over the keys of the lockers and voluntarily disclosing cash of Rs 2,09,89,090 lying in his cabinet, which he explained as an advance received from a reputed hospital in connection with his business. The proceedings were nevertheless converted into a search and seizure, which continued from 6 to 8 September 2016. The department denied the assertion of cooperation, saying he had failed to explain the source of the cash in statements recorded on oath during the survey under section 133A and later during the search under section 132(4), and said the material would be shown to the Court at the hearing, but nothing was appended to the reply. He filed a writ petition seeking to quash the search and seizure.
The petition succeeded, the impugned action of the respondents was quashed and consequential benefits were directed to flow to the petitioner forthwith. The Court held the action bad in law. The summons under section 131 was totally vague: it mentioned no document required of the petitioner and stated nothing else, so it failed to tell him what was expected of him, and the reply did not cure the omission. The petitioner's specific assertion that he had cooperated and disclosed the cash was met only by a denial simpliciter, with no material produced to show non-cooperation by him or his employees leading to the course subsequently adopted. No satisfaction was ever recorded that the survey had to be converted into a search and seizure. The Court held that in a procedure of this kind, which can often turn draconian, the inherent safeguard of at least recording a reason and a satisfaction of non-cooperation before resorting to coercive steps must be clearly set out by the income-tax authority, and that its absence was fatal to the respondents' case.
The Court read the survey provisions and the summons power together. Section 133A permits an authority to enter a place and inspect such books of account or documents as are necessary. Sub-section (3) allows him to examine the books, but reasons must be given if any book is impounded. Sub-section (4) is a prohibition: an authority acting under the section shall on no account remove or cause to be removed from the place he has entered any cash, stock or other valuable article or thing. Sub-section (6) supplies the only exception: if the person required to afford facilities to inspect books, to check or verify cash, stock or valuables, to furnish information or to have his statement recorded refuses or evades doing so, the authority then has all the powers under section 131(1) to enforce compliance. So the compulsive powers open only on refusal or evasion. Section 131(1) confers on the named authorities the powers of a civil court in discovery and inspection, enforcing attendance and examining on oath, compelling production of books, and issuing commissions. The department relied on section 131(1A), which allows the investigation wing or the authorised officer under section 132(1) to exercise those powers even where no proceeding is pending, but only where he has reasons to suspect that income has been or is likely to be concealed. The Court held that even accepting section 131(1A), the officers must state the reasons for that suspicion, and since what had been issued was a summons for a survey and the petitioner had voluntarily disclosed the cash, it was imperative that the suspicion be recorded before the survey was converted into a seizure. It applied Gheru Lal Bal Chand v ITO, (1982) 137 ITR 190 (P&H), where the Court had held that an officer who is debarred by section 133A(4) from removing books during a survey may resort to section 131 only if the assessee refuses or evades cooperation under section 133A(6), and quashed notices issued in excess of jurisdiction where the assessee had neither refused nor evaded. It drew further on G.M. Breweries v Union of India and Jamnadas Madhavji & Co v J.B. Panchal, on section 131(1) being a quasi-judicial power to be exercised strictly for its own purposes, and on the extracted reasoning that a search under section 132 is a serious invasion of privacy, that section 132(1) must be strictly construed, that the recorded belief must show on its face which of clauses (a), (b) or (c) it falls under, and that where the department already knows of the money or asset and the dispute is only whether it is taxable, clause (c) is not attracted, the remedy being a notice under section 148. It closed with the Supreme Court in ITO v Seth Brothers, (1969) 74 ITR 836, that the power must be exercised strictly in accordance with law and that the officer must satisfy the court about the regularity of his action if it is challenged.
in a procedure like this which can often turn draconian to inherent safeguard of at least recording a reason and satisfaction of non-cooperation to resort to other coercive steps need to be set out clearly by the income-tax authority
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 this record. The Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the action. Section 133A(4) forbids an income-tax authority acting under that section from removing any cash, stock or valuable article from the premises, and it is only where the person refuses or evades cooperation that section 133A(6) lets the authority fall back on the powers in section 131(1). Here the assessee had voluntarily disclosed and handed over Rs 2,09,89,090, the department produced no material to show non-cooperation, and no satisfaction was ever recorded for converting the survey into a search. The summons under section 131 was also vague, specifying nothing that was required of him. The action was quashed with consequential benefits. This was decided by the High Court (High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh; Mahesh Grover J and Lalit Batra J) and bears on section 133A, section 133A(4), section 133A(6), section 131(1), section 131(1A), section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as CWP No. 8261 of 2017, Punjab and Haryana High Court. Conversion of a survey into a search is a recurring grievance and is difficult to challenge afterwards, because everything the department relies on has by then been seized. This judgment identifies the two things the department must be able to show and usually cannot. First, cooperation: section 133A(6) is the only bridge from survey to the compulsive powers, and it opens only on refusal or evasion, so where the assessee produced the books, handed over the keys and disclosed the cash, there is no bridge. Second, recorded satisfaction: even if section 131(1A) is invoked, the officer must state his reasons for suspecting that income has been or is likely to be concealed, and where the summons issued was for a survey, it was imperative to record that suspicion before going further. The Court treats the absence of a recorded reason as fatal, saying that in a procedure that can often turn draconian the safeguard of recording reasons must be observed. It also collects the authority on the limits of section 131 and on strict construction of section 132(1). If it applies to you, the first step is this: Record your cooperation as it happens: note in writing what books, keys and cash were produced and when, and get the officers' acknowledgement, because the case turns on whether refusal or evasion can be shown.
On 6 September 2016 at about 11.30 a.m. officials entered the petitioner's business premises at SCO No. 76, MDC, Sector 5, Panchkula. He was, he said, asked to sign documents without being told their contents; on his questioning he was given a summons of the same date under section 131 stating that the officials wished to carry out a survey under section 133A. The summons converted his premises into a camp office and required him to attend and give evidence or produce books of account on pain of a penalty of Rs 10,000 for each default; at the foot it said only 'Books of accounts/documents specified'. His case was that he and his staff cooperated fully, producing the books, handing over the keys of the lockers and voluntarily disclosing cash of Rs 2,09,89,090 lying in his cabinet, which he explained as an advance received from a reputed hospital in connection with his business. The proceedings were nevertheless converted into a search and seizure, which continued from 6 to 8 September 2016. The department denied the assertion of cooperation, saying he had failed to explain the source of the cash in statements recorded on oath during the survey under section 133A and later during the search under section 132(4), and said the material would be shown to the Court at the hearing, but nothing was appended to the reply. He filed a writ petition seeking to quash the search and seizure. The matter was decided on 2019-05-22 by the High Court (High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh; Mahesh Grover J and Lalit Batra J). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The petition succeeded, the impugned action of the respondents was quashed and consequential benefits were directed to flow to the petitioner forthwith. The Court held the action bad in law. The summons under section 131 was totally vague: it mentioned no document required of the petitioner and stated nothing else, so it failed to tell him what was expected of him, and the reply did not cure the omission. The petitioner's specific assertion that he had cooperated and disclosed the cash was met only by a denial simpliciter, with no material produced to show non-cooperation by him or his employees leading to the course subsequently adopted. No satisfaction was ever recorded that the survey had to be converted into a search and seizure. The Court held that in a procedure of this kind, which can often turn draconian, the inherent safeguard of at least recording a reason and a satisfaction of non-cooperation before resorting to coercive steps must be clearly set out by the income-tax authority, and that its absence was fatal to the respondents' case.
The Court read the survey provisions and the summons power together. Section 133A permits an authority to enter a place and inspect such books of account or documents as are necessary. Sub-section (3) allows him to examine the books, but reasons must be given if any book is impounded. Sub-section (4) is a prohibition: an authority acting under the section shall on no account remove or cause to be removed from the place he has entered any cash, stock or other valuable article or thing. Sub-section (6) supplies the only exception: if the person required to afford facilities to inspect books, to check or verify cash, stock or valuables, to furnish information or to have his statement recorded refuses or evades doing so, the authority then has all the powers under section 131(1) to enforce compliance. So the compulsive powers open only on refusal or evasion. Section 131(1) confers on the named authorities the powers of a civil court in discovery and inspection, enforcing attendance and examining on oath, compelling production of books, and issuing commissions. The department relied on section 131(1A), which allows the investigation wing or the authorised officer under section 132(1) to exercise those powers even where no proceeding is pending, but only where he has reasons to suspect that income has been or is likely to be concealed. The Court held that even accepting section 131(1A), the officers must state the reasons for that suspicion, and since what had been issued was a summons for a survey and the petitioner had voluntarily disclosed the cash, it was imperative that the suspicion be recorded before the survey was converted into a seizure. It applied Gheru Lal Bal Chand v ITO, (1982) 137 ITR 190 (P&H), where the Court had held that an officer who is debarred by section 133A(4) from removing books during a survey may resort to section 131 only if the assessee refuses or evades cooperation under section 133A(6), and quashed notices issued in excess of jurisdiction where the assessee had neither refused nor evaded. It drew further on G.M. Breweries v Union of India and Jamnadas Madhavji & Co v J.B. Panchal, on section 131(1) being a quasi-judicial power to be exercised strictly for its own purposes, and on the extracted reasoning that a search under section 132 is a serious invasion of privacy, that section 132(1) must be strictly construed, that the recorded belief must show on its face which of clauses (a), (b) or (c) it falls under, and that where the department already knows of the money or asset and the dispute is only whether it is taxable, clause (c) is not attracted, the remedy being a notice under section 148. It closed with the Supreme Court in ITO v Seth Brothers, (1969) 74 ITR 836, that the power must be exercised strictly in accordance with law and that the officer must satisfy the court about the regularity of his action if it is challenged. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "in a procedure like this which can often turn draconian to inherent safeguard of at least recording a reason and satisfaction of non-cooperation to resort to other coercive steps need to be set out clearly by the income-tax authority"
It was decided by the High Court on 2019-05-22 and is reported as CWP No. 8261 of 2017, Punjab and Haryana High Court. 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 133A, section 133A(4), section 133A(6), section 131(1), section 131(1A), section 132(1), 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. The petition succeeded, the impugned action of the respondents was quashed and consequential benefits were directed to flow to the petitioner forthwith. The Court held the action bad in law. The summons under section 131 was totally vague: it mentioned no document required of the petitioner and stated nothing else, so it failed to tell him what was expected of him, and the reply did not cure the omission. The petitioner's specific assertion that he had cooperated and disclosed the cash was met only by a denial simpliciter, with no material produced to show non-cooperation by him or his employees leading to the course subsequently adopted. No satisfaction was ever recorded that the survey had to be converted into a search and seizure. The Court held that in a procedure of this kind, which can often turn draconian, the inherent safeguard of at least recording a reason and a satisfaction of non-cooperation before resorting to coercive steps must be clearly set out by the income-tax authority, and that its absence was fatal to the respondents' case. It arises in Search, Survey & Block Assessment and Evidence & Burden of Proof matters, on section 133A, section 133A(4), section 133A(6), section 131(1), section 131(1A), section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh; Mahesh Grover J and Lalit Batra 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 at the time for the summons or authorisation and read what it specifies; a summons under section 131 that names no document and states no requirement is vague and was one of the grounds here. Demand the recorded satisfaction for the conversion, and if the department merely denies non-cooperation without producing material, say so; a denial simpliciter did not answer the assertion in this case. Where cash on the premises has an innocent explanation, give it and evidence it at once, as the assessee did with the advance received from a hospital, since the department's knowledge of the asset weakens any case under section 132(1)(c).
Still good law. A reportable, speaking Division Bench judgment of 22 May 2019, following the Court's own earlier decision in Gheru Lal Bal Chand v ITO, (1982) 137 ITR 190 (P&H), and the Supreme Court in ITO v Seth Brothers, (1969) 74 ITR 836. The source page records two later citations, which were not read in this session. Whether the Revenue has appealed to the Supreme Court was not checked. 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 judgment does not identify the search authorisation, who issued it or under which clause of section 132(1), because the department produced no satisfaction note; so the case decides that nothing was shown, not that a properly recorded satisfaction would have failed. It quashes 'the impugned action' and directs consequential benefits without spelling out what is to happen to the seized cash of Rs 2,09,89,090, to the statements recorded under sections 133A and 132(4), or to any assessment already made on that material. It does not resolve the dispute of fact about whether the petitioner explained the source of the cash, deciding instead that the department's denial was unsupported. The Court quotes at length from a decision on the ingredients of section 132(1) without naming it in the harvested text, the extract beginning mid-paragraph at paragraph 36, so the source of that passage could not be identified here; the citations for G.M. Breweries and Jamnadas Madhavji are as the judgment prints them and were not independently verified. Paragraph references in the petitioner's assertion and the department's reply do not correspond, the petition's paragraph 5(viii) being answered by paragraph 5(x) of the reply. The batch line's sections match those the judgment turns on. 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.
The petition succeeded, the impugned action of the respondents was quashed and consequential benefits were directed to flow to the petitioner forthwith. The Court held the action bad in law. The summons under section 131 was totally vague: it mentioned no document required of the petitioner and stated nothing else, so it failed to tell him what was expected of him, and the reply did not cure the omission. The petitioner's specific assertion that he had cooperated and disclosed the cash was met only by a denial simpliciter, with no material produced to show non-cooperation by him or his employees leading to the course subsequently adopted. No satisfaction was ever recorded that the survey had to be converted into a search and seizure. The Court held that in a procedure of this kind, which can often turn draconian, the inherent safeguard of at least recording a reason and a satisfaction of non-cooperation before resorting to coercive steps must be clearly set out by the income-tax authority, and that its absence was fatal to the respondents' case.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
They recorded your statement in a survey. Can the addition rest on that alone?
You surrendered the amount to buy peace and avoid litigation. Does that stop the penalty?
Can I get a search warrant quashed by showing the department's material was too thin?
The search on me turned up nothing but the AO still made additions for an old year. Can he?