9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. CIT, Circle 1(1), New Delhi (the AO) under s. 158BC of the Act. These grounds were not opposed by the learned Departmental Representative as they were purely legal in nature. Therefore, the grounds were admitted on 13th Nov., 2007. 2. Before us, the learned counsel pointed out that the search and seizure operation conducted in this case were invalid because the authorization was issued by the Jt. Director of IT (Inv.), who was not competent to issue the authorization. In this connection, he drew our attention to pp. 262 to 285 of the paper book, which contain the Panchnama drawn on 18th Dec, 1999 and annexure thereto. Page 263 shows that the authorization was issued by the Jt. Director of IT (Inv.), Unit-VII, New Delhi. Page 286 is the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns filed by Dr. Nalini Mahajan and Ram Lal Mahajan Charitable Trust were allowed. For the sake of ready reference, the relevant portion of the order of Hon'ble High Court is reproduced below: "The Fifth Central Pay Commission had recommended a change in the designation of the Asstt. CIT (Senior Scale). Consequently, it was decided to re-designate Asstt. CIT (Senior Scale) and Asstt. Director of IT (Senior Scale) as Dy. CIT and Dy. Director of IT respectively. This necessitated re-designating the existing Dy. CIT and Jt. Director of IT respectively. The above changes in designation made it necessary to amend the various sections of the IT Act so that the statutory powers continue to be exercised by the substituted authorities as a result o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missions. It is seen that notification does not mention the designation of Jt. Director of IT (Inv.) as an authority specified for this purpose under s. 132(1) of the Act. Therefore, the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, being the jurisdictional High Court, to the effect that unless an amendment is carried out, the Addl. Director does not get any statutory power to issue authorization, is applicable equally to Jt. Director of IT (Inv.). Thus, it is held that the authorization was not issued by an authority competent to do so. Respectfully, following the decision in the case of Dr. Nalini Mahajan, it is also held that the search was invalid. The result is that no block assessment under s. 158BC could have been framed on the basis of sear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
