9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the block assessment proceedings. 2. Tribunal's jurisdiction to examine the validity of search action u/s 132. 3. Whether the search was initiated and conducted in accordance with law. Summary: 1. Validity of the Block Assessment Proceedings: The learned counsel for the assessee challenged the validity of the block assessment proceedings, arguing that no search warrant was issued in the names of the present assessees. The counsel contended that the names of the present assessees were inserted subsequently in the search warrant, which was originally issued in the name of Sidram Narsayya Chilka. The counsel also argued that no incriminating evidence was found, no Panchanama was prepared, and no statement was recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act, indicating that the search warrant was not intended for these assessees. 2. Tribunal's Jurisdiction to Examine the Validity of Search Action u/s 132: The Tribunal examined whether it could look into the validity of the search action taken u/s 132 of the Act. It referred to the Special Bench decisions in the cases of C. Ramaiah Reddy vs. Asstt. CIT and Promain Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT, which held that the Tribunal cannot examine the validity of search action u/s 132. The Tribunal also cited the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision in M.B. Lal vs. CIT and the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision in Gaya Prasad Pathak vs. Asstt. CIT, which supported this view. The Tribunal concluded that it has no power to look into the validity of the search action u/s 132(1) of the Act and that such issues should be challenged in writ proceedings under Art. 32/226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Whether the Search was Initiated and Conducted in Accordance with Law: The Tribunal examined the original search warrants and found no manipulations or interpolations. It noted that the search warrants were issued in the names of multiple persons, including the present assessees, and that the search was conducted at the premises mentioned in the warrants. The Tribunal rejected the contention that the search warrant was illegal due to the absence of full names of the assessees. It also dismissed the argument that the search was invalid because no separate Panchanama was prepared or signed by the assessees. The Tribunal held that the search was carried out in accordance with law and that the validity of the search action u/s 132(1) cannot be challenged before the Tribunal. Conclusion: The Tribunal rejected all objections raised by the assessee's counsel regarding the validity of the block assessment proceedings and the search action. The appeals were directed to be posted for hearing on merits.
|
