9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 974 - HC - Income TaxAssessment u/s 158BD - assessment of other person who was not searched - Tribunal found that the assessee did not co-operate with the Assessing Officer by filing a block return and did not furnish any information and, therefore, the Assessing Officer was constrained to complete the assessment to the best of judgment. - Held that - The Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and another v. Hotel Blue Moon 2010 (2) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA clearly specifies that section 158BC prescribes the procedure for making block assessment of the searched person and section 158BD enables assessment of any person, other than the searched person.section 158BC prescribes the procedure for making block assessment of the searched person and section 158BD enables assessment of any person, other than the searched person. In this case, we have no hesitation to hold that searched person is M/s. Harbour Syndicate and, therefore, as far as M/s. Harbour Syndicate is concerned, the Assessing Officer was justified in issuing notice under section 158BC and in respect of V. H. Yahiya, the Assessing Officer was justified in issuing notice under section 158BD. The question of law raised in this regard is answered in favour of the Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of search and seizure under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Appropriateness of issuing notices under Sections 158BC and 158BD for block assessments. 3. Legality and procedural correctness of assessments made under Sections 158BC and 158BD. 4. Interpretation and application of Sections 158BC and 158BD in relation to searched and non-searched persons. 5. Examination of the partnership deed and its impact on the assessment. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Search and Seizure under Section 132: The search was conducted under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the business premises of M/s. Harbour Syndicate, leading to the seizure of documents indicating undisclosed income. The search was aimed at uncovering the undisclosed income of individuals associated with the business, namely V. H. M. Rafeeq and V. H. Yahiya. The court confirmed the validity of the search and seizure operations, noting compliance with the statutory requirements under Section 132. 2. Appropriateness of Issuing Notices under Sections 158BC and 158BD: The core issue was whether the notices for block assessment should have been issued under Section 158BC or 158BD. The Tribunal and the High Court examined whether the Assessing Officer correctly issued notices under Section 158BC to M/s. Harbour Syndicate and under Section 158BD to V. H. Yahiya. The court concluded that the Assessing Officer was justified in issuing notice under Section 158BC to the searched person, M/s. Harbour Syndicate, and under Section 158BD to V. H. Yahiya, whose undisclosed income was discovered during the search. 3. Legality and Procedural Correctness of Assessments: The assessments were challenged on the grounds of procedural errors and exceeding the time limit for completion. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) initially found that the assessments were barred by limitation and not in accordance with Chapter XIV-B provisions. However, the Tribunal remanded the cases back for reconsideration on the merits, including the question of limitation. The High Court upheld this remand, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of the facts and compliance with procedural requirements. 4. Interpretation and Application of Sections 158BC and 158BD: The High Court provided a detailed interpretation of Sections 158BC and 158BD. It clarified that Section 158BC applies to the "person searched," which in this case was M/s. Harbour Syndicate. Section 158BD applies to "any person other than the person with respect to whom the search was made," i.e., V. H. Yahiya. The court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Manish Maheshwari's case to support its interpretation, confirming that the Assessing Officer correctly applied the provisions of Sections 158BC and 158BD. 5. Examination of the Partnership Deed and Its Impact: In the case of M/s. Doriccon, the Tribunal noted that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had not examined the partnership deed before arriving at conclusions on the merits. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's decision to remand the case for reconsideration, emphasizing the necessity of examining all relevant documents, including the partnership deed, to ensure a fair and accurate assessment. Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the Tribunal's decision to remand the matters for reconsideration on the merits. The court held that the Assessing Officer was justified in invoking Sections 158BC and 158BD in the respective cases and emphasized the need for a thorough examination of the facts and compliance with procedural requirements. The court's interpretation of Sections 158BC and 158BD provided clarity on the application of these provisions in relation to searched and non-searched persons.
|
