9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 556X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2009 is barred by limitation as the same ought to have been finalized on or before 31st December, 2008. The search u/s 132(1) having been concluded on 28.02.2007, the assessment was required to be made on or before 31st December, 2008 in view of the 21 months limitation prescribed in item (i) of the 2nd proviso to section 153B(1) of the Act." 3. The aforementioned ground has been decided by the learned CIT(A) against the assessee and being aggrieved, the assessee has raised following ground before the Tribunal, apart from the grounds in which the additions sustained on merits are also contested: "The learned CIT(A) has erred in failing to appreciate the fact that the assessment made u/s 153A, r.w.s. 143(3) dated 29.12.2009 is barred by limitation as the same ought to have been finalized on or before 31st December, 2008. The search u/s 132(1) having been concluded on 28.02.2007, the assessment was required to be made on or before 31st December, 2008 in view of the 21 months limitation prescribed in item (i) of the 2nd proviso to section 153B(1) of the Act." The aforementioned ground is common in all the years. 4. The Revenue in its appeals has contested the additions which have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents lying in the left hand top cabin of the wall cupboard in the bedroom of Shri Vijay Kr. Raichand at flat No. 11-A, Dolphin Tower, Sadashiv Park, Pilot Bhuder Road, Colaba, Mumbai -05" 6.2 On 28th April, 2007, search party visited again to the premises of the assessee and following order was passed: "During the course of search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, at the premises of Vijay Kr. Raichand M/s Claridges SEZ Pvt. Ltd., 11-A, Dolphin Tower, Sadashiv Park, Piolot Bhuder Co.-op. Housing Society Ltd., Colaba, Defence Station Area, Mumbai-05 on 28.02.2007, a restrain order u/s 132(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 28.02.2007 was passed on left hand top cabin of the wall cupboard in the bed room of Shri Vijay Kr. Raichand. The same is hereby revoked today, i.e., 28.04.2007 with immediate effect." 7. On above mentioned facts it is the case of the assessee that as per Punchnama drawn on 28th April, 2007, no seizure was made. Thus, search stood concluded on 28th February, 2007 and therefore the assessment for assessment years 2001-02 to 2006-07 were required to be made on or before 31st December, 2008 as per second proviso to Section 153B(1) of the Act. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... computing the limitation to pass the assessment order which was passed on 30th January, 2003. It was held that limitation to frame the assessment would end on 30th November, 2002, being two years from end of month in which search was concluded. 3) ClT v. Deepak Aggarwal [2009] 221 CTR 307 (Delhi HC)- In the said case, a search was conducted as per warrant dated 31-10-2000, on which date a, a prohibitory order under section 132(3) was passed in respect of inventory of stock which continued till it was revoked vide panchnama dated 23- 12-2000. It was the contention of the Revenue that period of limitation should be counted from 31-12-2000 therefore, block assessment made on 27-12-2002 was well within time. However, Tribunal held that revocation order dated 23-12- 2000 did not amount to execution of search as no asset was seized under said order and what happened was only revocation of prohibitory order passed earlier. Thus, it was held by the Tribunal that block assessment-in-question was barred by limitation. It was observed by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that there was no explanation forthcoming from revenue as to what had transpired from 31-10-2000 to 23-12-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r requisition under section 132A, as the case may be, was executed in cases where a search is initiated or books of account or other documents or any assets are requisitioned after the 30th day of June, 1995, but before the 1st day of January, 1997; (b) within two years from the end of the month in which the last of the authorisations for search under section 132 or for requisition under section 132A, as the case may be, was executed in cases where a search is initiated or books of account or other documents or any assets are requisitioned on or after the 1st day of January, 1997." 8.1 Reference was also made to the provisions of Section 153B of the Act. The relevant portion of which read as under: "153B. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 153, the Assessing Officer shall make an order of assessment or reassessment,- (a) in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years referred to in clause (b) of [sub-section (1) of] section 153A, within a period of two years from the end of the financial year in which the last of the authorisations for search under section 132 or for requisition under section 132A was executed; (b) in respect of the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... March, 2007 in conclusion of the said warrant of authorization vide punchnama dated 1st March, 2007, are also described in the earlier para of this order (para 6.1). On the same date i.e. 1st March, 2007, a prohibitory order was passed, copy of which is placed at page 10 of the paper book and the contents of the prohibitory order are also reproduced in the earlier para of this order (para 6.1). Copies of subsequent punchnama prepared on 28th April, 2007 and revocation order passed on 28th April, 2007 are also filed at pages 11 and 12 of the paper book. It is a matter of fact that, as per record, on the said date except from revoking the prohibitory order nothing was seized or inventorized. There is also nothing on record to show that between 1st March, 2007 to 28th April, 2007 something was done by the Revenue in respect of earlier authorization dated 27th February, 2007. Therefore, from the facts it is clear that subsequent to conclusion of original punchnama i.e. punchnama prepared on 1st March, 2007, no further seizure was made by the Revenue and on 28th April, 2007, only prohibitory order, which passed on 1st March, 2007, was vacated. On these facts, it is the case of the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hing is done except lifting the prohibitory orders then the last punchnama drawn on that date would not be relevant to compute the limitation period for framing the assessment. The details of these cases and what has been held therein has already been mentioned in para 7 of this order and for the sake of brevity the same is not reproduced again. Looking into the facts of the case which have been narrated in detail in the earlier part of this order, we are of the opinion that the learned CIT(A) has committed an error in not accepting the submission of the assessee that the computation of the period of limitation should commence on 1st March, 2007 when for all practical purposes the authorization issued by the department for search in the case of the assessee was executed and subsequent punchnama drawn on 28th April, 2007 could not be considered as relevant for computing the period of limitation for framing the assessment. Therefore, we reverse the order of learned CIT(A) on this issue and it is held that the assessments framed by the Assessing Officer on 29th December, 2009 in respect of all the impugned assessment years are beyond the period of 21 months, therefore, barred by limit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
