Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2019 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 301 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURTAssessment u/s 153A - validity of search conducted u/s 132 - search conducted in the premises in which the assessee may not be carrying on the business - HELD THAT:- The language or expression of sub-section (1) of Section 132 is clear and unambiguous. The location of the premises is in relation to the satisfaction reached by the authorities mentioned therein and the authorised officer can search any place mentioned in the warrant including any other place where he suspects that the books of accounts belonging to the assessee are kept and as such, the mere change of address of the assessee even being in the know how of the income tax department by itself would not vitiate or invalidate the search conducted u/s 132. In the instant case, the search conducted is in respect of the premises where the business of the firm carried earlier and continued by Sri.K.M.Vishwanath, who no doubt had retired from the partnership of the assessee-firm and it is in this premises where the books of accounts relating to the assessee-firm has been found and seized, which by itself proves the fact that the said premises was used by the assessee even as on the date of search conducted. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in MDLR RESORTS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS VERSUS CIT [2013 (12) TMI 1116 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has held that “address being different” would not vitiate the search and a person can also operate or keep books of accounts, jewellary etc., at different places and not necessarily the registered office or where the business is conducted. Hence, the search conducted in the premises in which the assessee may not be carrying on the business would not nullify the search. However, if the search is conducted in a premises other than what is reflected in the authorisation, then, the consequences would be different. In the instant case, search has been conducted in the premises, the address of which is reflected in the authorisation and undisputedly, occupied by Mr.K.M.Vishwanath, who was the erstwhile partner of the assessee till he retired on 31.07.2009. Despite notice issued u/s 153A, the said Sri.K.M.Vishwanath had not filed his return of income and had replied to the said notice contending that he is no longer a partner by enclosing the deed of retirement and deed of admission of other two partners. In this background, AO has concluded the proceedings u/s 144 which had been affirmed by the CIT (Appeals) and erroneously on the ground of search having been conducted in the premises not belonging to the assessee, appeal came to be allowed which is contrary to the tenor and language of Section 132. Hence, we answer the substantial questions of law in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.
|