9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are: 1. Lack of search warrant in the name of the assessee. 2. Jurisdictional validity of the assessing officer. 3. Assessment under the correct section and time limitation. Issue 1: Lack of search warrant in the name of the assessee: The appeal raised concerns regarding the absence of a search warrant in the name of the assessee, A.L. Ahuja HUF, during a search and seizure operation. The counsel argued that without a specific search warrant for the assessee, the assessment could not be valid. Citing precedents, it was contended that the absence of a search warrant in the name of the assessee rendered the assessment improper and invalid. Issue 2: Jurisdictional validity of the assessing officer: Another issue raised was the jurisdiction of the assessing officer, DCIT Special Range-35, to issue a notice under section 158BC/BD to the assessee. It was argued that the assessing officer did not have jurisdiction over the assessee at the time the notice was issued, as jurisdiction had been transferred after the notice date. The counsel contended that the assessment based on an invalid notice was legally flawed and should be quashed. Issue 3: Assessment under the correct section and time limitation: The third issue pertained to the assessment being framed under section 158BC/BD, with a challenge raised on whether the assessment was actually under section 158BC due to the lack of satisfaction recorded by the assessing officer. The counsel argued that the assessment was time-barred as it exceeded the one-year limit from the date of search operation. Citing legal requirements and precedents, it was contended that the assessment should be considered void ab initio and invalid due to these discrepancies. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments presented, concluded that the absence of a search warrant in the name of the assessee rendered the assessment invalid. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the assessing officer lacked jurisdiction at the time of issuing the notice, further undermining the validity of the assessment. As the assessment was deemed invalid on these grounds, the Tribunal quashed the assessment without delving into the merits of the case. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was allowed.
|
