TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 651X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er section 158BC. 4. The AR argued that there was no "warrant of authorisation" in the name of the assessee and therefore assessment could not be framed under section 158BC. Ld. Counsel drew our attention to page 2 of the paper book which is copy of panchnama drawn up in the name of Sh. Kailash Mudgil, husband of the assessee. He further drew our attention to Annexure 2 of Panchnama (Page 9 of paper book) to show that it was drawn up in the name of Mr. Kailash Mudgil. For similar purpose, page 10 of paper book which was Annexure C of Panchnama was also referred. ld. Counsel further took us through page 3 of Panchnama to show that the authorised officer recorded the statement of the assessee in the capacity of "wife of Mr. Kailash Mudgil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the assessee in his reply submitted that since ld. Sr. DR has accepted the non-existence of warrant of authorisation in the name of the assessee, nothing more is required to hold that assessment of the assessee could not be framed under section 158BC. 7. Countering the argument of the ld. Sr. DR, ld. Counsel further submitted that provisions of section 158BD are very harsh and therefore he construed strictly and there is no scope of giving any benefit to treat an assessment framed under section 158BC to treat as if it has been framed under section 158BD. Ld. Counsel further argued that section 158BD deems a person as person searched and therefore there has to be objective satisfaction to be recorded on file so as to avoid possibility ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... warrant of authorisation in respect of "any person" under specified circumstances. It means that the person under search has to be specific person with reference to whom alone, Assessing Officer shall assume jurisdiction to proceed under section 158BC. Therefore, since in the present case, there was no warrant of authorisation in the name of the assessee as admitted by ld. Sr. DR also, assessment framed under section 158BC is nullity and assessment so framed is declared null and void. We derive support from the decisions in the case of A.L. Ahuja HUF v. Dy. CIT [IT(SS) No. 279 (Delhi) of 1997, dated 26-12-2002] and R.P. Monga Sons, HUF v. Dy. CIT [ITA No. 5269 (Delhi) of 1996, dated 29-12-2000]. If argument of ld. Sr. DR is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 58BD is open to judicial scrutiny which cannot take place unless there is recording of such objective satisfaction. It is important to draw parity to section 132 where also there is no requirement of recording satisfaction but without such recording, in view of umpteen decisions, action of the specified authorities do not find approval from Hon ble courts. Section 292B does not cure the absence of jurisdiction which is very much there in the present case. Therefore we are constrained to hold the assessment framed in the present case as unsustainable even if it is viewed from any angle. 11. Therefore, appeal is allowed on the very first ground and we do not think necessary to deal other grounds on merits even though detailed arguments we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
