9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 469X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Shri S. Katyal (2008 (11) TMI 46 - HIGH COURT DELHI) wherein facts which were substantially similar to the present case. The Court had come to the conclusion that the later events could not be equated with continuation of search. The Court had held that on 3rd January, 2001 i.e. the date which the Revenue wanted to be believe the search had ended, nothin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 691 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 4-12-2018 - AKIL KURESHI AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant. Mr. Rajeev Kumar for the Respondent. P.C.: 1. Revenue has filed appeal against the judgment of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( the Tribunal for short) dated 29th May, 2015. 2. Following question has been presented for our consideration: Whether on the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... menced at 11.00 a.m. and was closed at 11.35 a.m. The Assessing Officer passed the order of assessment on 23rd February, 2000. In this context, the question arose whether such order of assessment was within the time permitted under Section 158BE(1)(b) of Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act for short). 4. The Tribunal held that the last action of search took place on 13th January, 1998 and therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the cash box and the almary and the keys were handed back to the assessee. It was in the nature of revocation of the seizure order passed earlier. 5. Facts are substantially similar in the present case. Though the panchnama drawn on 13th January, 1998 records that the search was temporarily concluded, concededly no further search was carried out on 6th February, 1998. The panchnama of 6th Fe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
