Defects in panchnamas don’t affect validity of search, yet remedial steps are needed to avoid this practice: HC

Facts:

The present writ petitions were filed by petitioners contending that no panchnamas were drawn against them, their names were subsequently interpolated and mentioned in warrants of search and, thus, proceedings initiated under section 153A were void and bad for want of jurisdiction.

The High Court dismissed these petitions by holding as under:

1) The expression ‘panchnama’ has not been defined in the Act. As per the manual prepared by the Revenue relating to search and seizure operations, at the end of search or when it is temporarily concluded, a panchnama is required to be prepared or drawn. It is evidently clear that this document has considerable evidentiary value and should be prepared with care and caution;

2) The panchnama should be exhaustive, should record all events in the same sequence in which they have occurred and should specify details like name of person against whom warrant was issued, time of temporary conclusion of search, etc. Panchnama should be prepared even in cases where nothing is found or seized in the search;

3) There was certainly lapse and failure to comply with the requirements of search and seizure manual, as the panchnama did not contain names of petitioners and did not record any suspension of search;

4) Even the obstruction and presence of third persons were not mentioned in the panchnamas. But this would not affect the validity of the search. However, the respondents had to take remedial steps and ensure that such lapses did not occur in future, otherwise similar allegations would be repeated, entailing litigation;

5) This would curtail any allegation of interpolation, addition of names, etc. However, in the facts of the present case, we do not think that the lapse or failure in the panchnamas would affect the validity of the search or would nullify notice under section 153A of the Act. Thus, the instant writ petition was to be dismissed as contention of the petitioners had no merits and the same was to be rejected - MDLR Resorts (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (2013) 40 taxman 365 (Delhi)