9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely relating to the block period ending 27.09.2000 and 28.09.2000. 2. The case in brief is as follows: Based on the information that the assessee / respondent was doing unaccounted business in jewellery, a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act was conducted in the residential as well as the business premises of the assessee on 28.09.2000 and the search was concluded on 01.06.2001 as per the last panchanama drawn, according to which, the warrant is shown to have been issued in the name of the assessee and his brother and father, while the premises searched were that of M/s.Kalyani Thanga Maligai and M/s.Sugali Bankers situated at No.115, Arcot Road, Virugambakkam, Chennai-600 092. Pursuant to the same, notice un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the block assessment as time barred especially when Section 158 BE(1) clearly holds that the limitation for completion of the assessment and the limitation is to start from the end of the month in which the last of the panchanama under Section 132 was drawn up and also when explanation 2 to Section 158 BE clearly provides that the last panchanama referred in Section 132 shall be deemed to have been executed in the case of search on the conclusion of search as recorded in the last panchanama? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal is right in law in going into issue relating to validity of the search conducted under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act while dealing with block assessment? 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seized after such inspection would be the undisclosed income for the purpose of the block assessment in pursuance of search under Section 132(1) of the Act. Thus, the panchanama evidencing such inspection and seizure would be the last panchanama in respect of the said premises. But for the purpose of limitation under Section 158BE, it would not be the last panchanama drawn in proof of conclusion of search, as defined in Explanation 2 to Section 158BE. For the purpose of limitation, there can be only one search and one panchnama as reasoned out by the Karnataka High Court. 14. Referring to the Kerala High Court decision in the case of Dr.C.Balakrishnan Nair Vs. CIT reported in (1999) 237 ITR 70 (Ker), the Karnataka High Court held that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to carry on the search in future date to contend that the limitation has to be worked out on the last panchanama drawn ie. 15.02.2002, thus calculating the limitation from 15.02.2002. We have no hesitation in accepting the case of the assessee that the limitation ends on 31.12.2003. The contention of the Revenue that the limitation has to be taken as 29.02.2004 does not go with the provisions of the Act. In such circumstances, the Tax Case Appeal is allowed. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. No costs." 5. In the present case, search was conducted on various dates from 28.09.2000 to 01.06.2001 and various panchanamas were issued, the last of which is dated 01.06.2001. There was no seizure on 18.01.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
