2008 (9) TMI 88 - HC - Income Tax

Assessment order pursuant to search & seizure - limitation assessee in the present case was not a company, but a partnership firm tribunal found that Panchnama was not pertaining to assessee (firm) but to a company - revenue had sought time to file the relevant Panchnama, but the same has not been filed - no argument/contention of revenue before the Tribunal that Panchnama was containing a typographical / clerical error assessment was rightly cancelled by ITAT on ground of limitation

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding limitation in assessment order after a search and seizure operation.

Analysis:
The High Court was presented with an appeal by the revenue challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning the limitation period for framing an assessment order following a search and seizure operation during the block period from 01.04.1990 to 17.11.2000. The main issue at hand was the timeline for completing the assessment as per the provisions of Section 158 BE (1) and Explanation 2. The Tribunal had determined that the assessment order passed on 31.01.2003 was beyond the prescribed limitation period of 31.12.2002, based on the last Panchnama dated 12.12.2000, which concluded the search operation.

The revenue contended that the last Panchnama was actually dated 03.01.2001, not 12.12.2000, but the Tribunal refuted this claim by clarifying that the Panchnama of 03.01.2001 pertained to a different entity, Shri Pashupati Tours and Travels Ltd, and not the present assessee, a partnership firm named Shri Pashupati Nathji Tours and Travels. Despite multiple opportunities granted to the revenue's counsel to provide the relevant Panchnama for verification, it was not submitted as it was reportedly untraceable. Consequently, the High Court found no grounds to challenge the Tribunal's factual finding and noted the absence of any argument regarding a typographical error in the Panchnama dated 03.01.2001, which incorrectly referenced a private limited company instead of the present assessee.

In light of the above circumstances, the High Court concluded that no substantial question of law merited consideration, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the revenue. The judgment upheld the Tribunal's decision on the limitation period for the assessment order, emphasizing the importance of accurate documentation and adherence to statutory timelines in such proceedings.