2012 (12) TMI 814 - AT - Income Tax

Warrant of authorization for conducting search - block assessment Held that - As decided in CIT (Central) Versus Smt. Vandana Verma 2009 (10) TMI 52 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT joint warrant could not be issued and it shall, be incumbent upon die authority to issue warrant in individual name Undisputedly in the present case the warrant of search was issued in the joint names of the assessee and his brother thus assessment not justified - the warrant of authorization must be issued individually by the Director/Commissioner at the time of issuing the same. If the same is not issued individually, then assessment cannot be made in an individual capacity as done by the Assessing Officer in the instant case - Order of CIT(A) is set aside and remand the matter to CIT(A) with a direction to await the decision of larger Bench and also direct the Revenue not to press demand raised out of assessment orders till disposal of the appeals by CIT(A) - appeals of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Validity of order under Section 153A(b) of the Income Tax Act
2. Ex-parte decision by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)
3. Notice dispatch and service issues
4. Failure to decide appeals on merit
5. Legality of search operation under Section 132(1)
6. Acceptance of income disclosed in block return
7. Addition made by Assessing Officer
8. Penal interest charged under Section 234-A and 234-B

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the order passed under Section 153A(b) of the Income Tax Act, claiming it was bad both factually and legally. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) to await a decision from a larger Bench due to conflicting judgments on similar issues.

2. The appellant objected to the ex-parte decision by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), arguing that no opportunity was provided to represent the case. The Tribunal found this action unjustified and remanded the matter back for proper adjudication, directing the Revenue not to press the demand raised until the issue is resolved.

3. Issues regarding the notice dispatch and service were raised, highlighting discrepancies in the process. The Tribunal acknowledged these concerns and directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) to await the decision of a larger Bench before proceeding further.

4. The appellant contended that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) failed to decide the appeals on merit, leading to a non-speaking order. The Tribunal set aside the previous order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision in light of the conflicting judgments on similar issues.

5. The legality of the search operation under Section 132(1) was questioned, with the appellant arguing that the conditions precedent for authorization did not exist. The Tribunal found merit in these arguments and directed a reevaluation of the search operation in accordance with legal requirements.

6. The appellant claimed that the income disclosed in the block return was accurate and should have been accepted. The Tribunal noted this contention and allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, pending further review by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) in light of the larger Bench decision.

7. An addition made by the Assessing Officer was challenged by the appellant as incorrect. The Tribunal found grounds for reconsideration and remanded the matter back for a fresh assessment in line with the pending larger Bench decision.

8. The appellant disputed the penal interest charged under Section 234-A and 234-B as unjustified. The Tribunal acknowledged these concerns and directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) to await the larger Bench decision before making any decisions on penal interest.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on addressing the various legal issues raised by the appellant, emphasizing the need for consistency and adherence to legal procedures in tax assessments and appeals.