Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2020 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (7) TMI 647 - HC - Income TaxBlock Assessment Order u/s 158BC r/w Section 158BD - assessment barred by limitation as per Section 158BE (1)(b) - no notice u/s 143(2) which is mandatorily to be issued even in respect of 158BC proceedings, had been issued - HELD THAT:- Allegation that a notice u/s 143(2) was not issued and that a notice u/s 142(1) only was issued is not correct since the notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued on the same date (6.6.2003) and also served on the same date (10.6.2003). In the above assessment order, the Assessing Officer was mentioning the reason why the notice u/s 142(1) was issued "only on 6.6.2003" whereas the petitioner attempts to read the word "only” in connection with the words "notice u/s 142(1)" to present as if only the notice u/s 142(1) was issued. This is not correct and the petitioner is well aware of the same. The allegation that no notice u/s 143(2) was issued and that the petitioner represented his case before the first respondent only on the basis of oral requirement is factually incorrect. The allegation that adequate opportunity was not given to the petitioner before the completion of the block assessment is factually incorrect since the case was discussed with the petitioner and his representatives on as much as six occasions. Block Assessment Orders as barred by limitation - Search operation commences at the second premises of the petitioner on 25.01.2001, continued till 12.06.2001, therefore each time separate panchanamas were drawn and prohibitory orders were issued with the endorsement that, "search continues". However it has been misquoted by the petitioner that, even though the panchanama, dated 25.01.2001 discloses with an endorsement of the Revenue that, the "search concluded", subsequent issuance of prohibitory order and on that strength, subsequent searches made till 12.06.2001 was unauthorised - in the second premises the search continued and in view of the specific provisions referred to above in Section 132(1)(iib), which, even though came into effect only from 01.06.2002, the continuous search went up to 12.06.2001 can very well said to be authorised and therefore the Revenue cannot be found fault with by compelling them to calculate the limitation within the meaning of Section 158BE(1)(b) from 01.02.2001 by taking into account the panchanama, dated 25.01.2001 as the last panchanama and by not taking the 12.06.2001 panchanama as the last panchanama. Therefore independently, on the basis of Section 132(1)(iib), the Revenue's continuous search operation taken place on various dates from 25.01.2001 till 12.06.2001 can very well be construed as an authorised search operation, therefore the panchanama issued on 12.06.2001 shall be deemed to be the last authorisation within the meaning of Explanation 2 to Section 158BE. If that being the position, the impugned Block Assessment Order, dated 30.06.2003 is within the limitation of two years under Section 158BE(1)(b) commencing from 01.07.2001 since the end of the month in which the last of authorisation for search under Section 132 was to be reckoned only as 30.06.2001. Ground raised by the petitioner side in the context of Section 158BE(1)(b) to state that, the impugned order is barred by limitation, is unsustainable. Block Assessment Order, dated 30.06.2003 cannot be said to be defective for want of limitation, within the meaning of Section 158BE(1)(b) of the Act and also the other reasons and grounds urged by the petitioner side since cannot be said to be the advancing factor of the petitioner's case, this Court feel that, the impugned order can very well be sustained, that means, on the grounds urged by the petitioner, it cannot be successfully assailed.
|