9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1693X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. The assessee had filed his return of income u/s 139 of the Act declaring certain income. Thereafter, search action u/s 132 was carried on 31.12.2006 in the residential premises of the assessee and certain incriminating documents were found and seized. Notice u/s 153A was issued to the assessee and consequent to the same, the assessee filed its return of income excluding certain portion of income, which was erroneously offered in the original return of income filed u/s 139 of the Act. During the assessment proceedings u/s 153A, the AO observed that the assessee has not given any reason for reducing the earlier declared income and hence, held that the income shown in the earlier return should be taken for computation purpose. Accordingly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rched is the AOP of the persons named in the warrant and not the individuals mentioned in the warrant. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the assessee, the search itself is invalid and void abinito and therefore, the consequential assessments should be knocked down. A copy of the order of the Hon'ble High Court is also placed before us. 7. The learned DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the assessee and his wife live in the same premises and therefore, the warrant of authorization has mentioned their names in the same warrant for searching the premises and it does not mean that it is an AOP of the assessee and his wife, who has been searched. 8. Having heard both the parties on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment on the ground that the condition specified under section 132(1)(a) and (b) did not exist. As far as the condition under section 132(1)(c) is concerned, indicating the reasons to believe that the assessee was not in possession of any money or asset which the assessee has not disclosed for the purpose of income tax to enable the Authorising Officer to issue warrant and consequently, the block assessment. The assessee relied on the decision of the Apex Court in 260 ITR 80. The Tribunal relying on the judgement of Allahabad High Court in the case of Vandana Verma, held that warrant issued in the joint name of Sri P J Kumar and his wife Smt. Satphal Behl and the assessment is completed in the individual name and capacity and therefore a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal on an earlier occasion, Such objection taken for the first time in the appeal preferred before the Tribunal and therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in entertaining the said ground. 8. We do not see any merit in this contention. Initiation of proceedings for block assessment commences with a search under section 132 of the Act. It is settled law that the search to be conducted should be strictly in accordance with law. If an authorization is issued in the name of two persons and if block assessment order to be passed, it should be passed in the name of two persons. If the order is passed in the name of an individual and not in respect of both the persons mentioned in the authorization, on the face of it the proceedings init ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
