2004 (6) TMI 31 - HC - Income Tax

Whether the assessment for the block period was barred under section 158BE - whether the search and seizure was made in violation of section 132 - Tribunal found that the concerned authority had material before it before exercising power under section 132 - The satisfaction arrived at by the concerned authority cannot be assailed on the ground of there being no material or actuated by mala fides or collateral purposes - Tribunal has found that there was enough material in the possession of the concerned authority for reason to believe that the appellant and others were in possession of income which has not been disclosed. The sufficiency of the material cannot be gone into specially when there is nothing on record to show that the power of exercise under section 132 of the Act was mala fide - There is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment for block period under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of search and seizure under section 132 of the Act.

Assessment for Block Period:
The appellant, a dental surgeon employed under the Government of Bihar, was involved in a search under section 132 of the Act related to an animal husbandry scam. The Assessing Officer made an assessment for the block period 1987-88 to 1997-98 based on available information and the appellant's income sources. The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal modifying the assessment. The appellant contended that the assessment was time-barred under section 158BE of the Act. However, the Court found that the assessment was made within one year from the execution of the last authorisation for search, thus rejecting this contention.

Validity of Search and Seizure:
The appellant argued that the pre-conditions for authorisation under section 132 were not met, making the search and seizure invalid. The Department defended the search, stating that the authority had sufficient reasons to order the search and seizure. The Court emphasized that the power under section 132 should be exercised lawfully and not arbitrarily. It cited the case of ITO v. Seth Brothers [1969] 74 ITR 836, highlighting the need for a valid reason to believe and lawful execution of the power. The Tribunal found that there was material supporting the authority's decision to conduct the search. As the appellant did not raise this issue before the Assessing Officer, the Court dismissed the argument, affirming the validity of the search and seizure.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the assessment for the block period and affirming the validity of the search and seizure conducted under section 132 of the Act. Justice S.N. Hussain concurred with the judgment.