Polisetty Somasundaram v. Dy. CIT (2023) 153 taxmann.com 591 / 226 TTJ 01 (Visakha)(Trib.)

S. 153A : Assessment-Search-Pendrive-Investigation agency only obtained a certificate about details of pen drive and person in whose custody it was seized and except those details nothing was there in certificate-Certificate was not completely filled up by revenue authorities-Four conditions stipulated in section 65B(2) i.e., (a) to (d) along with section 65B(4) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 were not followed while obtaining certificate-Certificate is not a valid certificate in eyes of law-Pendrive could not be considered as admissible evidence as per provisions of section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. [ S. 132, Indian Evidence, Act 1872, S. 65B(2), 65B(4)]

Pursuant to a search operation, carried at premises of assessee, a pendrive was seized from cashier of assessee. Assessee raised concerns regarding manner in which pendrive was seized from his cashier. The assessee contended that four conditions stipulated in section 65B(2) i.e., (a) to (d) along with section 65B(4) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 were to be followed while obtaining Certificate under section 65B and it was mandatory. Tribunal held that from records that investigation agency obtained a certificate about details of pendrive and person in whose custody it was seized and except those details nothing was there in certificate and also said certificate was not completely filled up by revenue authorities Whether in view of said facts, it could be said that four conditions stipulated in section 65B(2) i.e., (a) to (d) along with section 65B(4) were not followed by investigating agency while obtaining certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and therefore, this certificate was not a valid certificate as prescribed under Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and could not be enforced. Further information contained in seized pendrive could not be considered as admissible evidence as per provisions of section 65B of Indian Evidence Act and therefore, such inadmissible seized material was not sustainable in eyes of law and thus, assessment order passed in case of assessee was not a valid assessment order and it deserved to be set aside (AY. 2012-13 to 2020-21)