9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 814X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot be made in an individual capacity as done by the Assessing Officer in the instant case - Order of CIT(A) is set aside and remand the matter to CIT(A) with a direction to await the decision of larger Bench and also direct the Revenue not to press demand raised out of assessment orders till disposal of the appeals by CIT(A) - appeals of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA Nos.54 to 60/Alld/2012 - - - Dated:- 1-6-2012 - SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, AND SHRI S. V. MEHROTRA, JJ. Appellant by: Shri. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Respondent by: Shri. Y.P. Srivastav, D.R. O R D E R PER BENCH: These appeals are preferred by the assessee against the respective order of the ld. CIT(A) on common grounds. For the sake o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce his order is not a speaking order in the eyes of law. 5. That in any view of the matter the condition Precedent for issuing authorization under Section 132(1) did not exist nor shown to have been in existence and as such search operation under Section 132(1) could not have been legally carried out in this case as to make him liable to fact within the purview of Chapter XTV-B dealing within block assessment. Thus the entire search subsequent proceedings are unwarranted and illegal. Moreover the search was conducted on Joint Warrant hence the action is not correct. 6. That in any view of the matter income disclosed in the block return should have been accepted as the same is true and correct in the facts and circumstances of the case. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ld. counsel for the assessee further contended that in the instant case, warrant of search was issued in the joint names of the assessee and his brothers, therefore, the assessments framed in the individual hands of the assessees are not permissible in the eyes of law and the assessments framed consequent thereto deserve to be annulled. 5. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, has placed reliance upon another judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Raghuraj Pratap Singh and Others v. ACIT [2008] 307 ITR 450 in which their Lordships have held that warrant of authorization for conducting search is not invalid for the reason that it is issued in the names of more than one person. The ld. D.R. further contended that since tw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of Raghuraj Pratap Singh and Others v. ACIT (supra), the Hon'ble Alllahabad High Court has held that warrant of authorization for conducting search is not invalid for the reason that it is issued in the names of more than one person. The judgment was rendered on 14.7.2006. Thereafter in the case of CIT v. Smt. Vandana Verma (supra), another Bench of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has held while rendering the judgment on 9.10.2009 that it is not open to the assessing authority to assess the assessee in an individual capacity by invoking the provisions of Chapter XIV-B on the basis of assets and documents seized during the course of search carried out in pursuance of warrant of authorization which was issued in the joint names of the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to a Division Bench's judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5731 (M/B) of 2004 Raghuraj Pratap Singh vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, whereby Division Bench opined that warrant issued in joint name does not suffer from any infirmity and it could have been done. On the other hand, another judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Income Tax Appeal No. 21 of 2009 Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Aayakar Bhawan, Kanpur vs. Smt Vandana Verma held that joint warrant could not be issued and it shall, be incumbent upon die authority to issue warrant in individual name. We find that in case of Smt. Vandana Verma (supra) has been re-confirmed by a Division Bench while deciding the Income Tax Appeal No, 30 of, 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irection to await the decision of larger Bench in these cases, at least the demand raised by the Revenue be stayed so that the assessee may not be placed in any unpleasant/adverse situation. This request of the ld. counsel for the assessee was not objected to by the ld. D.R. The ld. D.R., however, submitted that a direction may kindly be issued in this regard. 10. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the cases, we are of the view that in the interest of justice, the matter may be remanded back to the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the issue as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court on this issue and till then the demand raised on account of assessments may not be pressed. We accordingly s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
