TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the Panchnama drawn on 06.08.2020, which was only for revocation of the restraint order and involved no search or seizure, could be treated as the last Panchnama for computing limitation under the search assessment provisions; (ii) Whether the certificate relating to the seized digital evidence satisfied the mandatory requirements for admissibility of electronic records.
Issue (i): Whether the Panchnama drawn on 06.08.2020, which was only for revocation of the restraint order and involved no search or seizure, could be treated as the last Panchnama for computing limitation under the search assessment provisions.
Analysis: The restraint order was placed because the articles were said to be impracticable to seize, but the later Panchnama merely recorded release of the restraint and did not disclose any fresh search or seizure. A Panchnama that only lifts a prohibitory order and does not culminate in search action cannot extend the period for completing the assessment. The limitation, therefore, had to run from the earlier Panchnama dated 31.01.2020, making the assessment order passed on 31.03.2022 beyond time.
Conclusion: This issue was decided in favour of the assessee; the assessment was held to be barred by limitation.
Issue (ii): Whether the certificate relating to the seized digital evidence satisfied the mandatory requirements for admissibility of electronic records.
Analysis: The electronic record could be acted upon only if the conditions for computer output and the accompanying certificate were strictly satisfied. The certificate on record was found deficient because it did not properly establish the source device, the conditions of production, and the other statutory requirements governing electronic evidence. In the absence of compliance with the mandatory conditions, the digital material could not be relied upon as admissible evidence.
Conclusion: This issue was decided in favour of the assessee; the electronic evidence was held to be inadmissible.
Final Conclusion: The common result was that the assessment order and the consequential additions could not stand, and all the appeals were allowed.
Ratio Decidendi: A Panchnama that merely records revocation of a restraint order without any fresh search or seizure cannot extend limitation for search assessments, and electronic records are admissible only on strict compliance with the statutory conditions governing computer output and certificate requirements.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
