9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 627X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment Years (AYs) 2001-02 to 2007-08. 2. In these batch of appeals, the Assessees involved are J.H. Finvest Pvt. Ltd., Texefx Marble Industries (formerly known as J.H. Business & Products Pvt. Ltd.) and SVIL Mines Ltd. 3. The background to the present appeals is that on the basis of authorizations dated 20th March 2007 under Section 132 (1) of the Act, a search was commenced on 21st March 2007 in the office premises of the above Assessees as well as the other Assessees, including Rim Zim Valley Products Pvt. Ltd, Aakriti International, apart from the residences of Mr.Sanjay Jain and Mr. Rajeev Jain, Directors of J.H. Finvest Pvt. Ltd. The search apparently continued on 22nd and 23rd March 2007 as well. It appears that during the said sear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Restraint orders were also issued in respect of certain small safes in which there were materials/documents and for which keys were not available. The search purportedly continued thereafter on 15th May 2007 when another panchnama was drawn up. In para (A) of the said panchnama it is mentioned that the warrants of authorization were issued in the case of the above Assessees apart from Mr. Sanjay Jain and Mr. Rajeev Jain, Rim Zim Valley Products Ltd. In para 2, it was stated that the search "was in continuance of the proceedings on 22/3/07.......". Para 8 then states that "The search commenced on 15/5/07 at ....../pm . The proceedings were closed on 15/5/07 at 6.45 pm as finally concluded". It is not in dispute that the assessment orders pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 132(3) of the Act for passing a restraint order can be only resorted to if there is any practical difficulty in seizing the item which is liable to be seized. If all actions of the search were completed and nothing was left to be done by the search party, then the action of the authorized officer under Section 132(3) would be illegal and consequently any panchnama prepared on the extended date of search, after lifting the restraint, would be of no consequence, for the purposes of computation of limitation under Section 153B of the Act. In particular, the ITAT referred to the decision of this Court in V.L.S. Finance Ltd. Vs. CIT 289 ITR 286 (Del) . 8. The ITAT correctly concluded that where there are various authorisations issued and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 23rd March 2007 in respect of these Assessees, in the absence of a fresh authorisation for another search, the time period for conclusion of the assessment in terms of clause (i) of the second proviso to Section 153 B (1) of the Act does not get extended only because their names were included in the panchnama drawn up on 15th May 2007. It is possible that their names were included in the said panchnama drawn up on 15th May 2007 in order to avoid the consequence of expiry of the period of limitation which, as far as these Assessees are concerned, commenced on 23rd March 2007, when the search "finally concluded". 11. Consequently, the impugned order of the ITAT, holding that the assessments in question were barred by limitation, and theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
