Search completion date depends on actual continuation; a later panchnama alone cannot extend the search period.

Where a prohibitory order under section 132(3) of the Income-tax Act was revoked on 21 December 2002 and no fresh order was issued, the search was treated as having concluded on that date. The record did not show that the search remained incomplete or was continued in close proximity thereafter, so the later panchnama dated 3 January 2003 could not by itself extend the search period or alter the completion date. The stated effect was that a later brief search entry does not postpone completion unless the continuation of the search is otherwise demonstrated.

---

---

Issues: Whether the search was completed on 21 December 2002 so that the later panchnama dated 3 January 2003 could not extend the search period or alter the completion date.

Analysis: The record showed a prohibitory order under section 132(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which was revoked on 21 December 2002. After revocation, no fresh prohibitory order was issued. The materials also did not indicate that the search remained incomplete or was continued in close proximity to that date. The later panchnama of 3 January 2003 merely recorded a brief search activity and did not support an inference that the search had been kept open to extend time.

Conclusion: The search was treated as concluded on 21 December 2002, and the later panchnama did not extend the search period. The appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a prohibitory order under section 132(3) is revoked and the search is not shown to have continued or remained incomplete, a later panchnama by itself does not postpone the date of completion of search.

---