2012 (4) TMI 146 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of search and seizure - Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessments were invalid for the reason that search warrant issued in Form 45 was invalid - It is also pertinent to note from the search records produced by the department that food bills raised against the customers by Khyber Hayath (sadhya) restaurant and Bimbis Fast Food show the same telephone number 382357, which intrinsically prove that all the concerns are owned and managed by same party, though under separate group names and concerns for the purpose of income tax benefits - During search it was also noticed that all the group concerns had common store in the same building. It is seen that simultaneously on 10.3.1999 itself the Managing Partner s house as well as another premises of the Bimbis functioning in another place at Ernakulam was also searched based on separate warrants - Held that the search is carried out strictly by following the procedure contained under Rule 112 and by issuing warrant by giving the names of each and every assessee separately after describing all of them as Bimbis Group of Concerns - Decided against the assessee by way of direction to Tribunal to decide this case on merit

Summary

Issues:
Validity of assessments based on search warrants issued under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:
The judgment involves two sets of appeals concerning two assessees, M/s.Bimbis South Star and M/s.Khyber Foods, assessed based on a search conducted under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act. The main question raised is whether the Tribunal was justified in holding the assessments invalid due to an alleged defect in the search warrant issued in Form 45. The Revenue argued that the assessees did not challenge the validity of assessments until the Tribunal stage, where they raised additional grounds claiming the warrants issued in the name of group concerns were invalid. The assessees heavily relied on a Tribunal order regarding a group of related assessees whose assessments were canceled for a similar reason. However, the Revenue cited a Division Bench decision that reversed the Tribunal's order, leading to the appeals being allowed. The High Court examined the warrants issued and found that the search was conducted in three premises simultaneously, with multiple establishments in the same building under different names but owned and managed by the same party. The warrants specifically listed the individual names of the assessees along with the group name, indicating a connected group of concerns. The Court noted that the search was conducted in accordance with the procedure under Rule 112, with separate warrants issued for assessees located in different buildings. Despite no objections during the initial stages, the assessees raised the warrant's defectiveness in the second appeal, which the Tribunal upheld without considering the warrant's contents. Considering the circumstances and the reversed Tribunal order in a similar case, the High Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the Tribunal's orders and remanding the appeals for a decision on merits.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues surrounding the validity of assessments based on search warrants under the Income Tax Act, the arguments presented by both parties, the examination of the warrants issued, and the Court's decision based on the procedural adherence and previous legal precedents.