9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act - Assessee was squarely covered by Section 158 BA (3) of the Act and the CBDT Circular no. 717 - Decided against the revenue. - Income Tax Appeal No.-62 of 2003 - - - Dated:- 15-7-2013 - Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani And Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,JJ. For the Appellant : S. C.,A. N. Mahajan, Ashok Kumar, Bharatji Agarwal, D. Awasthi, G. Krishna, R. K. Upadhaya, S Chopra For the Respondent : A. Bansal, S. K. Garg ORDER 1. We have heard Sri R.K. Upadhyay for the appellant-department. Sri Ashish Bansal appears for the respondent-assessee. 2. This Income Tax Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act 1961, arises out of an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad in Income Tax Appeal No.1574 (A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r? (v) Whether the order of the learned Tribunal was perverse in law and on facts in deleting the additions of Rs.2,28,030/-; Rs.22,313/-; Rs.30,208/-; Rs. 39,433/-; Rs. 29,611/-; Rs.5,000/- and Rs. 1,02,300/-?" 4. The ITAT held that authorisation of search was issued in the name of Ashok Kumar, however, the residential premises of Ashok Kumar and business premises of the firm M/s. Vishwanath Pd. Ashok Kumar were searched. The Tribunal thereafter recorded its finding on the question of authorisation, as issued against the assessee firm, as follows:- "In order to verify in whose name search was issued, we have called for the search warrant, which was produced by the ld. D.R. and we have perused the same and came to know that there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 158 BD. The Tribunal further held that in order to proceed against the firm, the AO should have recorded reasons, for issuing notice under Section 158 BD and having not recorded such reason, he could not be permitted to proceed with the assessment for the block period. 8. We do no find any error of fact or law in the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the authorization was not in the name of the assesseee firm, and thus the AO could not have proceeded under Section 158 BD of the Act. 9. In our view, the question No. (i) is concluded by findings of fact. The question Nos. (iv) (v) are dependent of findings on question No.1 and thus returned against revenue. 10. So far as question No. (iii), regarding undisclosed income of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
