Can I get a search warrant quashed by showing the department's material was too thin?
No. Forming the reason to believe under s.132 is an administrative act, and a writ court will not weigh whether the material was adequate. It will only ask whether the belief was mala fide, a pretence, or built on extraneous or irrelevant material.
Decided by the Supreme Court (Hemant Gupta J and V. Ramasubramanian J) on 2022-07-13, reported as [2022] 446 ITR 18 (SC); [2022] 288 Taxman 361 (SC); [2022] 140 taxmann.com 282 (SC); Civil Appeal No. 4081 of 2022. It bears on section 132, section 132(1), section 132(1)(b), section 132(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Search, Survey & Block Assessment matters.
This is the Revenue's answer to most writ petitions against search authorisations, so read it before you draft one. It closes off the argument that the information was too slender or that the search was a fishing enquiry, and it confirms the information need not amount to proof of undisclosed income at the authorisation stage. The High Court order quashing the warrant was set aside, so expect it to be cited against you.
Binding on every court and authority in India.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
For assessment year 2017-18 the assessee, based at Ahmedabad, advanced Rs 10 crore to M/s Goan Recreation Clubs Private Ltd - Rs 6 crore on 1 June 2016 and Rs 4 crore on 21 June 2016 - secured by a mortgage of land at Bambolim, North Goa. He had become a director of that company on 18 May 2016 and ceased to be one on 23 June 2016. The loan was repaid between 6 October 2016 and 31 March 2017, the mortgage was released on 10 July 2017, and interest of Rs 42,51,946 was returned and taxed; the assessment was completed under s.143(3) on 2 March 2021 (para 4). The company was connected with Sarju Sharma of Siliguri and had come to notice through data on high value cash deposits after demonetisation, having deposited Rs 13,79,10,500 in two bank accounts (para 6). On that material a warrant of authorisation under s.132 was issued on 7 August 2018 and the search was carried out at the assessee's residence on 10 and 11 August 2018 (paras 1, 5). The satisfaction note was not supplied to the assessee and was not required to be disclosed under the Explanation to s.132(1) inserted with retrospective effect from 1 April 1962, but the reasons were produced before both courts (para 5). The Gujarat High Court quashed the warrant on 22 February 2019 and invalidated everything done under it (para 1). There was no allegation of mala fides against the officers (para 2).
The appeal was allowed, the Gujarat High Court's order of 22 February 2019 was set aside, and the Revenue was left at liberty to proceed in accordance with law (para 34). The sufficiency or inadequacy of the reasons to believe cannot be gone into when the validity of an authorisation to search is challenged; the belief itself is justiciable, but only on the Wednesbury principle of reasonableness, which is not a power to sit in appeal over the reasons recorded (para 32). On the material - a Rs 10 crore advance for a brief period to a stranger company with no established business, repaid within the year, alleged to be an accommodation entry - the prerequisite conditions of s.132(1) were satisfied (para 26), clause (b) being met because it was not unreasonable to apprehend that the assessee would not produce books if summoned before an officer in West Bengal (para 27), and clause (c) because the source of the Rs 10 crore was itself what the Revenue wished to investigate (para 28). The Court restated the principles governing writ jurisdiction over s.132 in nine propositions at para 33.
The Court restated the position at para 33: the formation of opinion and the recording of reasons to believe is administrative, not judicial or quasi-judicial; the information must be in the authorised official's possession and the opinion honest and bona fide, not a mere pretence, and consideration of extraneous or irrelevant material vitiates it; the belief must be that the person has failed or will fail to produce books or documents, or is in possession of money or valuables representing undisclosed income; the reasons may have to be placed before the High Court, which may examine them for mala fides, pretence or extraneous material but not for adequacy; they satisfy the judicial conscience of the court and are not to be reproduced in its order; sufficiency of the grounds is not a justiciable issue; relevance is tested with the judicial restraint appropriate to review of administrative action, the court not sitting in appeal but reviewing the manner in which the decision was made; and, by the Explanation inserted by the Finance Act 2017 with retrospective effect from 1 April 1962, the reasons need not be disclosed to any person, authority or the Appellate Tribunal. The Court held that reasons to believe are not the final conclusions the revenue will reach in the assessment, and the test of justiciability is whether the reasons are totally irrelevant or whimsical (para 25). It drew the standard of restraint from Tata Cellular, Indian Oil Corpn. v. Rajendra D. Harmalkar and Utkal Suppliers (paras 29 to 31), and from Partap Singh the propositions that not every search need result in seizure of incriminating material and that the belief must have a rational connection to the purpose of the section (para 26). The High Court had quoted the Revenue's counter-affidavit extensively yet still found no material, which the Court held was wrong (para 25).
In the light of judgments referred to above, the sufficiency or inadequacy of the reasons to believe recorded cannot be gone into while considering the validity of an act of authorization to conduct search and seizure.
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. Forming the reason to believe under s.132 is an administrative act, and a writ court will not weigh whether the material was adequate. It will only ask whether the belief was mala fide, a pretence, or built on extraneous or irrelevant material. This was decided by the Supreme Court (Hemant Gupta J and V. Ramasubramanian J) and bears on section 132, section 132(1), section 132(1)(b), section 132(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as [2022] 446 ITR 18 (SC); [2022] 288 Taxman 361 (SC); [2022] 140 taxmann.com 282 (SC); Civil Appeal No. 4081 of 2022. This is the Revenue's answer to most writ petitions against search authorisations, so read it before you draft one. It closes off the argument that the information was too slender or that the search was a fishing enquiry, and it confirms the information need not amount to proof of undisclosed income at the authorisation stage. The High Court order quashing the warrant was set aside, so expect it to be cited against you. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Ask in writing for the satisfaction note and the information the competent authority had before it, because the challenge can only be built on what was actually on that file.
For assessment year 2017-18 the assessee, based at Ahmedabad, advanced Rs 10 crore to M/s Goan Recreation Clubs Private Ltd - Rs 6 crore on 1 June 2016 and Rs 4 crore on 21 June 2016 - secured by a mortgage of land at Bambolim, North Goa. He had become a director of that company on 18 May 2016 and ceased to be one on 23 June 2016. The loan was repaid between 6 October 2016 and 31 March 2017, the mortgage was released on 10 July 2017, and interest of Rs 42,51,946 was returned and taxed; the assessment was completed under s.143(3) on 2 March 2021 (para 4). The company was connected with Sarju Sharma of Siliguri and had come to notice through data on high value cash deposits after demonetisation, having deposited Rs 13,79,10,500 in two bank accounts (para 6). On that material a warrant of authorisation under s.132 was issued on 7 August 2018 and the search was carried out at the assessee's residence on 10 and 11 August 2018 (paras 1, 5). The satisfaction note was not supplied to the assessee and was not required to be disclosed under the Explanation to s.132(1) inserted with retrospective effect from 1 April 1962, but the reasons were produced before both courts (para 5). The Gujarat High Court quashed the warrant on 22 February 2019 and invalidated everything done under it (para 1). There was no allegation of mala fides against the officers (para 2). The matter was decided on 2022-07-13 by the Supreme Court (Hemant Gupta J and V. Ramasubramanian J). On those facts the Supreme Court held as follows. The appeal was allowed, the Gujarat High Court's order of 22 February 2019 was set aside, and the Revenue was left at liberty to proceed in accordance with law (para 34). The sufficiency or inadequacy of the reasons to believe cannot be gone into when the validity of an authorisation to search is challenged; the belief itself is justiciable, but only on the Wednesbury principle of reasonableness, which is not a power to sit in appeal over the reasons recorded (para 32). On the material - a Rs 10 crore advance for a brief period to a stranger company with no established business, repaid within the year, alleged to be an accommodation entry - the prerequisite conditions of s.132(1) were satisfied (para 26), clause (b) being met because it was not unreasonable to apprehend that the assessee would not produce books if summoned before an officer in West Bengal (para 27), and clause (c) because the source of the Rs 10 crore was itself what the Revenue wished to investigate (para 28). The Court restated the principles governing writ jurisdiction over s.132 in nine propositions at para 33.
The Court restated the position at para 33: the formation of opinion and the recording of reasons to believe is administrative, not judicial or quasi-judicial; the information must be in the authorised official's possession and the opinion honest and bona fide, not a mere pretence, and consideration of extraneous or irrelevant material vitiates it; the belief must be that the person has failed or will fail to produce books or documents, or is in possession of money or valuables representing undisclosed income; the reasons may have to be placed before the High Court, which may examine them for mala fides, pretence or extraneous material but not for adequacy; they satisfy the judicial conscience of the court and are not to be reproduced in its order; sufficiency of the grounds is not a justiciable issue; relevance is tested with the judicial restraint appropriate to review of administrative action, the court not sitting in appeal but reviewing the manner in which the decision was made; and, by the Explanation inserted by the Finance Act 2017 with retrospective effect from 1 April 1962, the reasons need not be disclosed to any person, authority or the Appellate Tribunal. The Court held that reasons to believe are not the final conclusions the revenue will reach in the assessment, and the test of justiciability is whether the reasons are totally irrelevant or whimsical (para 25). It drew the standard of restraint from Tata Cellular, Indian Oil Corpn. v. Rajendra D. Harmalkar and Utkal Suppliers (paras 29 to 31), and from Partap Singh the propositions that not every search need result in seizure of incriminating material and that the belief must have a rational connection to the purpose of the section (para 26). The High Court had quoted the Revenue's counter-affidavit extensively yet still found no material, which the Court held was wrong (para 25). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "In the light of judgments referred to above, the sufficiency or inadequacy of the reasons to believe recorded cannot be gone into while considering the validity of an act of authorization to conduct search and seizure."
It was decided by the Supreme Court on 2022-07-13 and is reported as [2022] 446 ITR 18 (SC); [2022] 288 Taxman 361 (SC); [2022] 140 taxmann.com 282 (SC); Civil Appeal No. 4081 of 2022. Binding on every court and authority in India. A Supreme Court decision binds every assessing officer, every Commissioner (Appeals), every bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and every High Court in India. An officer who declines to follow it is acting contrary to law, and that refusal is itself a ground of appeal. On section 132, section 132(1), section 132(1)(b), section 132(1)(c), 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 department, and it appears in this library for that reason — you need to know what the Assessing Officer will cite against you. The appeal was allowed, the Gujarat High Court's order of 22 February 2019 was set aside, and the Revenue was left at liberty to proceed in accordance with law (para 34). The sufficiency or inadequacy of the reasons to believe cannot be gone into when the validity of an authorisation to search is challenged; the belief itself is justiciable, but only on the Wednesbury principle of reasonableness, which is not a power to sit in appeal over the reasons recorded (para 32). On the material - a Rs 10 crore advance for a brief period to a stranger company with no established business, repaid within the year, alleged to be an accommodation entry - the prerequisite conditions of s.132(1) were satisfied (para 26), clause (b) being met because it was not unreasonable to apprehend that the assessee would not produce books if summoned before an officer in West Bengal (para 27), and clause (c) because the source of the Rs 10 crore was itself what the Revenue wished to investigate (para 28). The Court restated the principles governing writ jurisdiction over s.132 in nine propositions at para 33. It arises in Search, Survey & Block Assessment matters, on section 132, section 132(1), section 132(1)(b), section 132(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Hemant Gupta J and V. Ramasubramanian 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. Plead the attack as a total absence of information, mala fides, or reliance on extraneous considerations, which are the grounds a writ court will still examine. Do not frame the petition around the material being insufficient or the search being unwarranted, which is precisely what this decision refuses to review.
Still good law. The judgment reversed Laljibhai Kanjibhai Mandalia v. Pr. DIT (Investigation) [2019] 105 taxmann.com 260 / 263 Taxman 604 / 416 ITR 365 (Guj.) (para 34). No later Supreme Court decision doubting or distinguishing it was found. Later High Court decisions apply the para 33 restatement as the governing test, including Pramod Swarup Agarwal v. Pr. DIT (Inv.) [2025] 175 taxmann.com 121 (Allahabad), 3 June 2025 - which is recorded as decided in favour of the assessee, so applying this test does not by itself mean the search survives. That decision was seen in the database listing and was not opened. 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.
Two things beyond the headline rule are worth carrying into a submission. First, the nine propositions at para 33 are the Court's own restatement of when a writ court may interfere with a s.132 authorisation, and they should be pleaded as such rather than paraphrased. Second, para 33(ix) records that under the Explanation to s.132(1) inserted by the Finance Act 2017 with retrospective effect from 1 April 1962, the reasons to believe need not be disclosed to any person, any authority or the Appellate Tribunal - so an application for the satisfaction note will not succeed, although the reasons must still be produced for the court, as they were here (para 5). The decision was on clauses (b) and (c) of s.132(1) and there was no allegation of mala fides on the record (para 2), so it does not decide what follows where mala fides are pleaded and made out. An earlier Supreme Court order between the same parties is listed at [2022] 139 taxmann.com 374 (SC), dated 12 May 2022; it was not opened, so its effect on this appeal is not established here. 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 appeal was allowed, the Gujarat High Court's order of 22 February 2019 was set aside, and the Revenue was left at liberty to proceed in accordance with law (para 34). The sufficiency or inadequacy of the reasons to believe cannot be gone into when the validity of an authorisation to search is challenged; the belief itself is justiciable, but only on the Wednesbury principle of reasonableness, which is not a power to sit in appeal over the reasons recorded (para 32). On the material - a Rs 10 crore advance for a brief period to a stranger company with no established business, repaid within the year, alleged to be an accommodation entry - the prerequisite conditions of s.132(1) were satisfied (para 26), clause (b) being met because it was not unreasonable to apprehend that the assessee would not produce books if summoned before an officer in West Bengal (para 27), and clause (c) because the source of the Rs 10 crore was itself what the Revenue wished to investigate (para 28). The Court restated the principles governing writ jurisdiction over s.132 in nine propositions at para 33.
TaxSphere, “PDIT (Investigation) v Laljibhai Mandalia”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/pdit-v-laljibhai-mandalia-search-warrant/ (validity last checked 2026-08-19)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
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?
The department is justifying my search warrant with discrepancies it discovered after the satisfaction note was recorded. Can material found later prop up the authorisation?
Can I demand the satisfaction note and the reasons recorded before a search warrant was issued against me, and get the search quashed if they look thin?
The search on me was illegal. Can I stop the department using what it took?
