9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 1134 - AT - Income TaxValidity of block assessment - Held that - CIT(A) ought to have taken the panchnama dated15/12/1997 as the last panchnama within the meaning explanation 2 to section 158BE of the Act. Contrary to this the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the findings of the AO treating the so called panchnama dated 06/01/1998 as the last panchnama and also held the assessment order passed on 31/01/2000 as a valid order. Hence in our considered opinion the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is apparently erroneous and contrary to the settled law. We therefore hold that in the present case since the limitation period had started for passing block assessment order on 15/12/97 the assessment order passed on 31/01/2000 is barred by Block Assessment period 1988-89 to 1998-99 limitation. Accordingly we set aside the impugned order being not sustainable in law and allow all the effective grounds of the appeal of the assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the block assessment order was barred by limitation. 2. Determination of the assessee’s undisclosed income for the block period. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the Block Assessment Order was Barred by Limitation: - Facts and Background: The assessee was involved in the business of milk and milk products. A search and seizure action was conducted on 15/12/1997 at the business premises, leading to the seizure of cash and incriminating documents. The assessee was directed to file a return of income for the block period, which was subsequently filed. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment based on the seized documents and details furnished by the assessee, calculating the total undisclosed income at ?5,47,73,875/-. - Assessee's Argument: The assessee contended that the block assessment order was invalid and barred by limitation under section 158BE of the Act. The search was concluded on 15/12/1997, and the assessment order should have been passed by 31/12/1999. However, the order was passed on 31/01/2000, beyond the limitation period. The assessee cited several judicial pronouncements to support this contention. - Revenue's Argument: The Revenue argued that the last panchnama was prepared on 06/01/1998, and thus, the assessment was completed within the limitation period. - Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal referred to various judicial precedents, including CIT vs. Mrs. Sandhya P. Naik & Others and Adolf Patrick Pinto’s case, which held that the passing of a prohibitory order under section 132(3) does not extend the time limit for framing the block assessment order. The Tribunal concluded that the panchnama dated 06/01/1998 was merely for lifting prohibitory orders and could not be treated as the execution of the search warrant. Therefore, the assessment order passed on 31/01/2000 was barred by limitation. - Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, declaring the assessment order as barred by limitation and allowed the appeal of the assessee. 2. Determination of the Assessee’s Undisclosed Income for the Block Period: - Revenue's Appeal: The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)’s order on several grounds related to the determination of the assessee’s undisclosed income. These included the method of calculating net profit percentage, estimation of milk quantity increase, and specific additions for different assessment years. - Tribunal's Decision: Since the Tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeal on the ground of limitation, it declared the assessment proceedings void ab initio. Consequently, the Tribunal found no need to adjudicate the Revenue’s appeal on its merits. - Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal as the assessment proceedings were declared void due to being barred by limitation. Final Order: - The appeal of the assessee was treated as allowed. - The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. - The order was pronounced in the open court on 13th April, 2016.
|
