9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1330X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... already found by the AO, as is evident from Annexure-A order and it is on that basis that the first appellate authority had, at the first instance, vide Annexure-B order cancelled the assessment with a direction. It was, therefore, essential that the AO should have taken the proceedings under Section 158BD within a reasonable time, and a period of three years for issuance of notice and seven years for completing block assessment is definitely not a reasonable time. We find, absolutely, no illegality in the order of the Tribunal. The question of law is answered in favour of the assessee. - ITA. No. 206 of 2012 And ITA. No. 223 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 23-10-2018 - MR K. VINOD CHANDRAN AND MR ASHOK MENON, JJ. For The Appellant : ADV. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... athan, on the issue of segregation of income of Raghunathan from that of Sunil Das. Another direction was to re-examine the issue of addition on account of credit in the bank account. Order is produced at Annexure-B. Assessment was completed afresh after the proceedings were initiated against Sunil Das, on 28.9.2006 as per Annexure-C. 4. The assessees were aggrieved and filed appeals before the CIT (Appeals) raising a contention that the AO was not justified in issuing notice under Section 158BC after a period of more than five years, which is not at all a reasonable period, and beyond the scope of Section 158BE(2). Vide Annexure-D order, the CIT (Appeals) held that the order of the AO was void ab initio and cancelled the same. 5. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come on 16.2.2001 returning an undisclosed income of ₹ 18,52,611/- for the block period. On challenging the order at Annexure-A dated 31.7.2001 before the CIT (Appeals), vide Annexure-B dated 27.2.2004, there was a remand, consequent to which notice was issued under Section 158BD on 27.9.2004 and block assessment completed on 2.2.2007. 10. The contention of the assessees is that there was a delay of more than three years after issuance of notice under Section 158BD and for completion of block assessment, there was a delay of seven years from the date of search. The argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the assessees is that since notices were issued after three years, they are barred by limitation. 11. In defence, the learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
