9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of block assessment order u/s 158BC without a search warrant in the name of the assessee. 2. Applicability of provisions of Chapter XIV-B of the Act in the absence of a search warrant. 3. Requirement of following the procedure u/s 158BD when incriminating evidence is found against a person not subjected to search. Summary: 1. Validity of Block Assessment Order u/s 158BC: The primary issue was whether the block assessment order passed u/s 158BC of the Act was valid when no search warrant was issued in the name of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that a search and seizure action u/s 132 was conducted at the residential premises of the assessee's husband, and no search warrant was issued in the name of the assessee. The assessee argued that the block assessment order was void ab initio and bad in law due to the absence of a search warrant in her name. The Tribunal upheld this argument, stating that the search action is person-specific and not premises-specific, and since no search warrant was issued in the name of the assessee, the block assessment order u/s 158BC was liable to be quashed. 2. Applicability of Provisions of Chapter XIV-B: The Tribunal emphasized that the provisions of Chapter XIV-B come into play only as a result of a search action carried out u/s 132, which is person-specific. The Tribunal referred to various case laws, including Vishwanath Prasad v. Asstt. CIT and Jt. CIT v. Latika Waman, to support the view that the provisions of section 158BC would not be applicable without a search warrant in the name of the person. The Tribunal concluded that the absence of a search warrant in the name of the assessee invalidated the block assessment proceedings. 3. Requirement of Following Procedure u/s 158BD: The Tribunal addressed the argument that incriminating evidence found during the search of the assessee's husband could justify the block assessment u/s 158BC. The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the proper course would have been to issue a notice u/s 158BD if incriminating material against the assessee was found during the search of her husband. The Tribunal cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manish Maheshwari v. Asstt. CIT, which mandates strict compliance with the procedure laid down u/s 158BD. The Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer could not bypass the prescribed procedures and issue a notice u/s 158BC without a search warrant in the name of the assessee. Conclusion: The Tribunal quashed the block assessment order u/s 158BC due to the absence of a search warrant in the name of the assessee, rendering the proceedings bad in law. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and there was no need to adjudicate the other grounds raised on merits.
|
