TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... carried under s. 132(1) was concluded on 17th Nov., 2000 when Panchnama was prepared and restraint order was issued against the assessee. The limitation to make and complete assessment started from the above date and accordingly order under s. 158BC was to be passed before 30th Nov., 2002. The same was passed on 30th Jan., 2003 and was hopelessly out of time. It was contended that no seizure was effected on 3rd Jan., 2001 and, therefore, question of issuing any Panchnama on the above date did not arise. In fact in the so-called Panchnama issued on 3rd Jan., 2001, it is specifically admitted by the competent authority that it was a release order. From the copy of the aforesaid Panchnama available at pp. 20 to 25 of the paper book, the learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompleted on 30th Nov., 2000. The learned counsel for the assessee relied upon decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of B.K. Nowlakha vs. Union of India (1992) 101 CTR (Del) 73 : (1991) 192 ITR 436 (Del). The aforesaid decision was followed by Calcutta High Court in the case of Mahesh Kumar Agarwal vs. Dy. Director of IT (Inv.) (2003) 180 CTR (Cal) 517 : (2003) 260 ITR 67 (Cal). Their Lordships of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mrs. Sandhya P. Naik (2002) 178 CTR (Bom) 448 : (2002) 253 ITR 534 (Bom) also laid down similar proposition and held that restraint order not amounting to seizure cannot be taken into account for calculating period of limitation for framing an assessment. The learned counsel also relied upon seve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was passed well within the time allowed under s. 158BE(1)(b). In view of the above, it cannot be said that no proceedings had taken place on 3rd Jan., 2001 and therefore, the additional ground of the appellant is dismissed." 5. Objection of the AO that additional ground should not be considered as point of limitation was not raised during the course of assessment was required to be stated to be rejected. Cause of action relating to limitation arose to the assessee when assessment order was passed out of time. Objection relating to limitation, therefore, could not be taken during the course of assessment proceedings. The alleged Panchnama dt. 3rd Jan., 2001 was merely release order and could not extend period of limitation. Thus objections ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
