TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. - 1652/2006 - - - Dated:- 9-4-2010 - Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant: Ms Prem Lata Bansal For the Respondent: Mr Manu Monga CORAM: Hon'ble Mr Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed Hon'ble Mr Justice Siddharth Mridul 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes. SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J 1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is directed against the order dated 28th April, 2006, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in IT(SS) No.313/D/1997 pertaining to the block period 1st Apr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Section 158BC, deserves to be vacated. 4. The Tribunal noticed that the search must be considered to have been completed on the date of the last panchnama drawn when certain seizure was affected. The Tribunal further noted that the restraint order issued under Section 132(3) of the Act does not amount to seizure. In order to search the premises again, in accordance with the provisions of Section 132(1) of the Act, the authority to initiate the search must have firm belief that some income remained undisclosed, that was represented by books of accounts, money, bullion etc. and issue an authorization for search. This was not done. Further, the officials who visited the premises on various dates, after gaps and after repeated action of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar time limit for framing the block assessment started from the end of the month i.e. 31st August, 1996 and ended on the 31st August, 1997. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the block period assessment framed on the 28th November, 1997 was barred by limitation and was, therefore, bad in the eyes of law. The Tribunal accordingly quashed the same. 5. In Commissioner of Income Tax vs. S.K. Katiyal: 308 ITR 168 (Delhi), a Division Bench of this Court observed as under:- "17. This discussion leads us to the question - Was the panchnama of January 3, 2001, of the type mentioned in the said Explanation 2(a)? From the facts narrated above, it is clear that the panchnama of January 3, 2001, itself reveals that nothing was seized on that date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
