Section 275A — Contravention of order made under sub-section (3) of section 132
Case Laws & Commentary — Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026) — bharattax.co Treatise
Status: Live penal provision. Search-related offence enforcing prohibitory orders under section 132.
Finance Act, 2026: AMENDED w.e.f. 1 March 2026 — marginal heading recast and punishment converted from rigorous to simple imprisonment (see amendment note).
Mechanism: Punishes breach of a prohibitory/restraint order passed during search (second proviso to s.132(1) or s.132(3)). Strict-liability framing — 'Whoever contravenes'.
Litigation profile: Sparse — no direct reported merits authority; understood through the s.132 search jurisprudence.
A. COMMENTARY
Scheme and field of operation
Section 275A criminalises the contravention of a restraint or prohibitory order made under the second proviso to sub-section (1), or under sub-section (3), of section 132. Where, during a search, it is not practicable to seize bullion, jewellery, books of account or other valuable articles, the authorised officer may serve an order that the person in possession shall not remove, part with or otherwise deal with the property except with the officer's prior permission (a 'deemed seizure' / restraint order). Section 275A is the penal sanction that gives that order teeth: a person who flouts it faces criminal prosecution, over and above the civil consequences.
Ingredients
The offence has a narrow actus reus — (i) existence of a valid order under the second proviso to s.132(1) or under s.132(3); and (ii) its contravention by the accused. The provision is framed in the widest terms ('Whoever contravenes'), reaching any person bound by the order, not merely the assessee searched. Because the order itself defines the prohibited conduct, the validity of the underlying s.132 action and of the restraint order is logically anterior to any conviction; a restraint order that has lapsed (s.132(8A) limits its life) or that was issued without jurisdiction cannot found a charge.
FA 2026 Amendment (w.e.f. 1 March 2026)
By section 23 of the Finance Act, 2026, with effect from 1 March 2026, section 275A is amended in two respects. First, the marginal heading is substituted to read 'Contravention of order made during search action.' Secondly, for the words 'rigorous imprisonment which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine', the words 'simple imprisonment for a term up to two years and with fine' are substituted. The maximum term (two years) is unchanged, but the imprisonment is softened from rigorous to simple — part of the Finance Act, 2026 policy of rationalising the penal code by removing rigorous imprisonment and mandatory minimum sentences across Chapter XXII. The verbatim text in Part B is the pre-amendment (Finance Act, 2025) text.
Practice note
Sanction under section 279(1) (Principal Commissioner/Commissioner) is a pre-condition to prosecution. The provision is rarely invoked in isolation; in practice a contravention of a restraint order surfaces alongside the substantive search-assessment and any concealment prosecution under sections 276C/277. The natural defence is to attack the existence, validity or subsistence of the order said to have been contravened.
B. STATUTORY TEXT (verbatim — pre-Finance Act, 2026 text)
The text reproduced is the pre-Finance Act, 2026 text; for the punishment as it reads from 1 March 2026, see the amendment note above.
Contravention of order made under sub-section (3) of section 132.
275A. Whoever contravenes any order referred to in the second proviso to sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 132 shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine.
C. AUTHORITIES
Section 275A has not generated a reported body of merits case law (candour rule). It is understood through the constitutional and procedural jurisprudence on section 132 searches and restraint/prohibitory orders, the validity of which is the real battleground.
Cognate authority — validity of section 132 search and restraint
These decisions do not construe section 275A directly; they govern the validity of the s.132 action and the restraint/prohibitory order whose contravention the section punishes, and therefore frame any defence.
Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (1974) 93 ITR 505 (SC)
Court/Year Supreme Court, 1974.
Holding Upheld the constitutional validity of search and seizure under section 132; material seized even in an irregular search is not inadmissible. Establishes that the s.132 machinery — including restraint orders — is a valid statutory scheme.
ITO v. Seth Bros. (1969) 74 ITR 836 (SC)
Court/Year Supreme Court, 1969.
Holding Section 132 powers are to be exercised strictly within the statute; an order made bona fide and within jurisdiction is valid. A restraint order outside jurisdiction is open to challenge — the logical antecedent to any 275A charge.
CIT v. Tarsem Kumar (1986) 161 ITR 505 (SC)
Court/Year Supreme Court, 1986.
Holding Construes the limits of seizure powers under section 132; reinforces that the property and the order must fall within the section before coercive/penal consequences follow.
CHAPTER XXII — OFFENCES AND PROSECUTIONS
Section 275A — Contravention of order made under sub-section (3) of section 132
Case Laws & Commentary — Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026) — bharattax.co Treatise
Status: Live penal provision. Search-related offence enforcing prohibitory orders under section 132.
Finance Act, 2026: AMENDED w.e.f. 1 March 2026 — marginal heading recast and punishment converted from rigorous to simple imprisonment (see amendment note).
Mechanism: Punishes breach of a prohibitory/restraint order passed during search (second proviso to s.132(1) or s.132(3)). Strict-liability framing — 'Whoever contravenes'.
Litigation profile: Sparse — no direct reported merits authority; understood through the s.132 search jurisprudence.
A. COMMENTARY
Scheme and field of operation
Section 275A criminalises the contravention of a restraint or prohibitory order made under the second proviso to sub-section (1), or under sub-section (3), of section 132. Where, during a search, it is not practicable to seize bullion, jewellery, books of account or other valuable articles, the authorised officer may serve an order that the person in possession shall not remove, part with or otherwise deal with the property except with the officer's prior permission (a 'deemed seizure' / restraint order). Section 275A is the penal sanction that gives that order teeth: a person who flouts it faces criminal prosecution, over and above the civil consequences.
Ingredients
The offence has a narrow actus reus — (i) existence of a valid order under the second proviso to s.132(1) or under s.132(3); and (ii) its contravention by the accused. The provision is framed in the widest terms ('Whoever contravenes'), reaching any person bound by the order, not merely the assessee searched. Because the order itself defines the prohibited conduct, the validity of the underlying s.132 action and of the restraint order is logically anterior to any conviction; a restraint order that has lapsed (s.132(8A) limits its life) or that was issued without jurisdiction cannot found a charge.
FA 2026 Amendment (w.e.f. 1 March 2026)
By section 23 of the Finance Act, 2026, with effect from 1 March 2026, section 275A is amended in two respects. First, the marginal heading is substituted to read 'Contravention of order made during search action.' Secondly, for the words 'rigorous imprisonment which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine', the words 'simple imprisonment for a term up to two years and with fine' are substituted. The maximum term (two years) is unchanged, but the imprisonment is softened from rigorous to simple — part of the Finance Act, 2026 policy of rationalising the penal code by removing rigorous imprisonment and mandatory minimum sentences across Chapter XXII. The verbatim text in Part B is the pre-amendment (Finance Act, 2025) text.
Practice note
Sanction under section 279(1) (Principal Commissioner/Commissioner) is a pre-condition to prosecution. The provision is rarely invoked in isolation; in practice a contravention of a restraint order surfaces alongside the substantive search-assessment and any concealment prosecution under sections 276C/277. The natural defence is to attack the existence, validity or subsistence of the order said to have been contravened.
B. STATUTORY TEXT (verbatim — pre-Finance Act, 2026 text)
The text reproduced is the pre-Finance Act, 2026 text; for the punishment as it reads from 1 March 2026, see the amendment note above.
Contravention of order made under sub-section (3) of section 132.
275A. Whoever contravenes any order referred to in the second proviso to sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 132 shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine.
C. AUTHORITIES
Section 275A has not generated a reported body of merits case law (candour rule). It is understood through the constitutional and procedural jurisprudence on section 132 searches and restraint/prohibitory orders, the validity of which is the real battleground.
Cognate authority — validity of section 132 search and restraint
These decisions do not construe section 275A directly; they govern the validity of the s.132 action and the restraint/prohibitory order whose contravention the section punishes, and therefore frame any defence.
Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (1974) 93 ITR 505 (SC)
Court/Year Supreme Court, 1974.
Holding Upheld the constitutional validity of search and seizure under section 132; material seized even in an irregular search is not inadmissible. Establishes that the s.132 machinery — including restraint orders — is a valid statutory scheme.
ITO v. Seth Bros. (1969) 74 ITR 836 (SC)
Court/Year Supreme Court, 1969.
Holding Section 132 powers are to be exercised strictly within the statute; an order made bona fide and within jurisdiction is valid. A restraint order outside jurisdiction is open to challenge — the logical antecedent to any 275A charge.
CIT v. Tarsem Kumar (1986) 161 ITR 505 (SC)
Court/Year Supreme Court, 1986.
Holding Construes the limits of seizure powers under section 132; reinforces that the property and the order must fall within the section before coercive/penal consequences follow.