9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 1200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thorization is to be considered for the purpose of starting point of limitation of two years, in that case, the entire object and purpose of Explanation 2 to Section 158BE would be frustrated. If the said submission is accepted, in that case, the question which is required to be considered is what would happen to those material collected during the search after the last Panchnama. It cannot be disputed that there may be number of searches. Thus, the view taken by the High Court that the date of the Panchnama last drawn would be the relevant date for considering the period of limitation of two years and not the last date of authorization, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. Appeal dismissed. - CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 345-350 OF 2012 - - - Dated:- 24-3-2023 - M. R. SHAH And C. T. RAVIKUMAR , JJ. For the Appellant : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, AOR Mr. Somil Aggarwal, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. N Venkatraman, A.S.G. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mrs. Rekha Pandey, Adv. Mr. Sansriti Pathak, Adv. Mrs. Vishkha, Adv. Mr. Shetty Udai Kumar Sagar, Adv. Mr. H R Rao, Adv. JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f other assessees. The respondents assessees filed appeals challenging the assessment orders, inter alia, on the ground that the assessment was time barred. According to the assessees, limitation of two years as prescribed under section 158BE of the Act, which was to be computed when Panchnama in respect of the second authorization was executed, i.e., on 26.03.2001. Since that Panchnama was drawn on 26.03.2001, two years period as prescribed under Section 158BE(b) of the Act came to an end by March, 2003 and the assessment order was passed in April, 2003, which according to the assessee was thus time barred. On the other hand, the plea of the department was that since the last Panchnama through related to search authorization dated 13.03.2001 was executed on 11.04.2001, limitation of two years was to be computed from that date and therefore the assessment was passed was well within the prescribed limitation. 2.4 The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals. However, the ITAT allowed the appeals and held that the respective assessment orders were barred by limitation since the Panchnama with respect to last authorization was drawn on 26.03.2001. Against the order passed by the ITAT setting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ma on conclusion of the search was drawn on 11.04.2001 and therefore the limitation period of two years would start from 11.04.2001. It is submitted that if the submission on behalf of the assessees is accepted, in that case, the Explanation 2 to Section 158BE would become nugatory and redundant. 4.1 It is further submitted by the learned ASG appearing on behalf of the Revenue that Explanation 2 to Section 158BE has been specifically inserted with a view to give last of the Panchnama as the starting point of limitation. It is submitted that the time for completion of the block assessment under Section 158BC/158BE is the conclusion of search/drawing of last Panchnama which will be relevant and not the dates of issuance of various authorizations. It is submitted that in a given case where number of authorizations are issued and relevant material/s is/are collected during the search on different dates on the basis of the different authorizations, ultimately the assessment proceedings would be on the basis of the entire material collected during the search and on the basis of the Panchnama drawn. It is submitted that therefore the date on which the last Panchnama was drawn is the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on for the purposes of this section, (i) the period during which the assessment proceeding is stayed by an order or injunction of any court; or (ii) the period commencing from the day on which the Assessing Officer directs the assessee to get his accounts audited under sub-section (2- A) of Section 142 and ending on the day on which the assessee is required to furnish a report of such audit under that sub-section; or (iii) the time taken in reopening the whole or any part of the proceeding or giving an opportunity to the assessee to be re-heard under the proviso to Section 129; or (iv) in a case where an application made before the Settlement Commission under Section 245-C is rejected by it or is not allowed to be proceeded with by it, the period commencing on the date on which such application is made and ending with the date on which the order under sub-section (1) of Section 245-D is received by the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] under sub-section (2) of that section, shall be excluded: Provided that where immediately after the exclusion of the aforesaid period, the period of limitation referred to in sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
