9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 468X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gi Complex from Ohm Organizers and Ohm Developers holding that there was inordinate delay in inflation of action u/s.158BD and thereby the proceedings initiated u/s.158BD is invalid. 2. The issue raised by the Revenue has already been decided by Respected Benches in number of appeals, therefore, we have decided to proceed ex-parte qua the assessee, after hearing the ld.Sr.DR Mr.B.L.Yadav who has placed reliance on the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. Facts in brief as emerged from the corresponding assessment order passed u/s.158BC r.w.s.158BD of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 28/01/2009 are that the Assessing Officer has noted that a search u/s.132 was carried out at the business premise of M/s.Ohm Developers, Surat on 29/10/1999. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tner of M/s.Ohm Developers had stated on oath, that the khatavahi BS-2/26 contained the accounts of flat/shop owners of Chandan Park. It also contained the details of date-wise payments received through cheques as well as in cash, which was the on-money. 3.2. When the matter was carried before the first appellate authority, the ld.CIT(A) held as under:- "Decision 6. I have carefully considered both the positions. In all the cases of the investors with M/s.Ohm Developers and Ohm Organisers whose appeals have been decided by me so far, I have taken the view that there is o time limit prescribed for proceedings to be initiated u/s.158BD of the IT Act. While taking such a view, I have respectfully disagreed with the view taken by the Special ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other 2 (two) years, on 28.01.2009. Interestingly, the AO has made no mention of the date on which intimation was received by him from the AO of M/s.Ohm Developers. 6.2. Given such facts as detailed above, I am of the view that there has been an inordinate delay in initiating and completing the proceedings u/s.158BC r.w.s. 158BD in the case of the Assessee. Though, the Act does not lay down any time limit for initiating proceedings u/s.158BD yet, equity demands that proceedings should not be kept pending indefinitely and the Sword of Damocles be kept hanging over the head of the taxpayer for an indefinite period. Explanation regarding the investment in the said properties was furnished by the Assessee. If the Authorities failed to utilize ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (236 ITR 73)(Guj.) 4.1. All these cases are covered by search operation which was conducted on M/s.Ohm Organizers. In the above cited order, the Tribunal has noted that search in the case of Ohm Developers was carried out on 29.10.1999. The Tribunal has further noted that the assessment in the case of Ohm Developers was completed on 30.11.2001. Therefore, following Manish Maheshwari 289 ITR 341 (SC)[supra], the several Respected Co-ordinate Benches have unanimously held that the belated issuance of notice u/s.158BD was barred by limitation. Out of the list of the orders reproduced above, we hereinbelow reproduce the relevant paragraphs from the order of DCIT vs. Shri Shailesh M.Desai [supra] as under:- "6. On consideration of the rival su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s we hold that the block assessment framed in case of all the above assessee are not legally valid and therefore are quashed for the reason that notices u/s 158BD of the Act were issued in these cases long after completion of assessment in the case of person searched i.e. Ohm Developers." 7. We may also point out that recently the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in its unreported judgment in ITA No. 379 of 2010 dated 25-08-2010 in the case of CIT-I, Ludhiana vs M/s Parveen Fabrics Pvt Ltd. dismissed the appeal filed by the department by passing the following order: "1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n identical matter was considered by this Court in order dated 207.2010 in ITA No.591 of 2009, Commissioner of Income-tax-l, Ludhiana v. Mridula, Prop. M/s Dhruv Fabrics, Ludhiana and it was observed: "the act no where specifically prescribes any time limit or limitation for initiation of proceedings under Section 158BD of the Act or for recording of satisfaction before taking action under that provision. The plain and reasonable construction that can be placed on the aforesaid provision would be that the recording of satisfaction for taking action against any other person under Section 158BD of the Act has to be between initiation of proceedings under section 158BC and before completion of block assessment under Section 158BC of the Act i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
