9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (6) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt has filed this appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), against the decision dated December 21, 2000, passed in I.T.A. No. (SS) 25 (Patna) of 1998 by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, by which the Tribunal has upheld with modification, the order dated January 28, 1998, passed by the Assessing Officer (Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax), Patna, under section 158BC of the Act making assessment for the block period 1987-88 to 1997-98 (up to November 27, 1996). The factual matrix for disposal of the appeal is that the appellant is a dental surgeon and employed under the Government of Bihar. One Dr. O.P. Diwakar was an employee of the Animal Husbandry Department and was a tenant in the house of the appellant situate at Road No. 20, Gardaribagh, Patna. He was involved in the animal husbandry scam involving defalcation and misappropriation of an amount of rupees one thousand crores. A search under section 132 of the Act was conducted against the said Dr. O.P. Diwakar, the appellant and others. In the case of the appellant the search commenced on November 27, 1996, and was concluded on January 9, 1997. The war ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the assessment for block period is barred under section 158BE of the Act. In this connection, he submitted that the last of the authorisations regarding search against the appellant was executed on December 11, 1996, and the subsequent execution of authorisation on January 9, 1997, in respect of the bank locker belonging to the appellant's mother-in-law could not extend the limitation on the ground that the appellant's name is also mentioned in the authorisation. In other words, he submitted that the authorisation in the case of the appellant was executed on December 11, 1996, and the order of assessment was passed on January 28, 1998, and as such it was beyond one year from the end of the month in which the last of the authorisations for search under section 132 was executed in the case of the appellant. The subsequent authorisation issued on December 11, 1996 and executed on January 9, 1997, could not be taken into consideration for counting the period of limitation as that was issued in respect of the bank locker belonging to the appellant's mother-in-law. Secondly, he submitted that the pre-conditions for issuance of authorisation of search and seizure as provided under sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In pursuance of which the search was conducted on January 9, 1997, and the panchanama shows that the warrant of authorisation was in the name of the appellant and others and that was executed on January 9, 1997. There is no legal bar in issuance of a common authorisation. The fact that the locker was in the name of other family members of the appellant with regard to which authorisation for the search was also issued will not make any difference when the authorisation under section 132 of the Act also contains the name of the appellant. In pursuance of the said authorisation, the search was made on January 9, 1997. According to the relevant provision of section 158BE of the Act, the order for assessment for block period has to be passed within one year from the end of the month in which the last of the authorisation for search under section 132 of the Act was executed. As the execution of authorisation in the case of the appellant was made on January 9, 1997, the period of one year is to be counted from the end of the month of January, 1997 and within one year admittedly the assessment has been made on January 28,1998, which is within one year from the date of execution of the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder search exist. He must record reasons for the belief and he must issue an authorization in favour of a designated officer to search the premises and exercise the powers set out therein. The condition for entry into and making search of any building or place is the reason to believe that any books of account or other documents which will be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under the Act may be found. If the officer has reason to believe that any books of account or other documents would be useful for, or relevant to, any proceedings under the Act, he is authorised by law to seize those books of account or other documents, and to place marks of identification therein, to make extracts or copies therefrom and also to make a note or an inventory of any articles or other things found in the course of the search. Since by the exercise of the power a serious invasion is made upon the rights, privacy and freedom of the taxpayer, the power must be exercised strictly in accordance with the law and only for the purposes for which the law authorizes it to be exercised. If the action of the officer issuing the authorization or of the designated officer is challenged, the officer c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
