9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 23;, for short) was conducted on 21.11.1996 pursuant to the warrant of authorization. Thereafter, the block assessment order dated 28.11.1997 under Section 158BC of the Act for the period ending 21.11.1996 was passed in the case of the respondent-assessee. One of the grounds raised by the respondent-assessee before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal („Tribunal‟, for short) was that the warrant of authorization did not include and mention the name of the respondent-assessee and therefore, the block assessment proceedings under Section 158BC were invalid and illegal for the want of jurisdiction as only the assessee who has been searched can be subjected to the said procedure. For other persons, the procedure under Section 158 BD has to be adopted and the said procedure was not followed in the present case. 4. In paras 10 to 14 of the impugned order, the Tribunal has recorded and observed as under : "10. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate insisted for production of search warrant by submitting that there was no authorization of search against the assessee. In this regard he made reference to the direction of the Bench dated 29-8-05 throu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thorization in the case of the assessee for conducting the search against the assessee has not been produced." 5. In this appeal which was preferred on or about 9th January, 2007, the Revenue has taken a specific plea and contention that the warrant of authorization in fact, mentions the name of the respondent-assessee. Thus the factual finding recorded by the tribunal is incorrect. The search warrant was in respect of Hindustan Development Corporation Group(„HDC Group‟, for short). The allegations were that HDC Group had arranged profits in various group companies in collusion with sharebrokers. Speculation profit was set off against the interest outgo, mainly to the flagship company. The assessee was facilitating the ploughing back of undisclosed income. 6. When the matter came up for hearing before High Court on 22.8.2007, the following order was passed : "Learned counsel for the Revenue has shown us the original warrant of authorisation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 112 (2) (a) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The warrant contains the name of the Assessee (Promain Ltd.) Issue notice to the Assessee, returnable on 3rd December, 2007. Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t-assessee. The aforesaid documents will be filed within 10 days. The appellant will produce original records on the next date of hearing including the warrant of authorization which was produced before the Tribunal at the time of the hearing. It may be noted that an application was filed by the revenue under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before the Tribunal. It is stated that the same has been dismissed as it was filed beyond the prescribed time. Re-list the matter on 9th February, 2012." 10. The aforesaid order does not help the respondent-assessee in view of the original warrant of authorization which has been produced before us. The finding of the tribunal is clearly contrary to the original warrant. This is a case wherein mistake has happened. It will be very difficult for us to point out why and how this mistake was made by the tribunal. The appellant-Revenue has filed an affidavit of the Assessing Officer, Mr.S B Singh who was then the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-14(1), New Delhi. He has been stated that there was only one warrant of authorization available with them and it is the same warrant of authorization which has been produced before thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r sheets found during the course of search. J In these sheets of papers, copies of which are available at pages 215 to 222 of the paper book, the entries also do not pertain to the assessee and thus the contents of these documents cannot be utilized against the assessee. On this basis, the block assessment order made under section 158BC against the assessee cannot be justified. 23. Thus, on acts and in the circumstances of this case, it is found from record that no material has been collected during the course of search against the assessee on the basis of which the computation of undisclosed income for the block period is worked out. We, therefore, find sufficient force in the ground taken by the assessee for assailing the assessment order." 14. In this connection we deem it appropriate to refer to the block assessment. The Assessing Officer in the block assessment order has referred to the modus operandi adopted by the HDC group. Para 5, thereafter, refers to the profit and losses shown by the respondent-assessee in respect of the transactions which have been effected through a single broker M/s Rahul and Company, Kolkata. These transactions were in respect of 1993-94 and 1994-9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rely record its conclusions without discussing the factual matrix, evidence and material. Merely stating that the papers etc. do not pertain to the assessee and the contents of the document cannot be utilized, is the conclusion or the final inference which is not sufficient and adequate in the light of what has been recorded and held by the Assessing Officer in the block assessment order. In these circumstances, we have no other option but pass an order of remit and ask the Tribunal to discuss and examine the matter afresh and decide the factual matrix in detail. Of course the applicable provision of the Act have also to be examined. 16. Ld. counsel for the respondent-assessee states that he had filed a detailed written synopsis and states that this was taken note of by the Tribunal. However, this does not mean that the order of the Tribunal meets the legal requirement. The impugned order cannot be upheld on this ground. Law requires and mandates that the Tribunal should explain and give reasons which are discernible and should be apparent from the order. We cannot assume, what had weighed and mattered with the tribunal in the absence of discussion. 17. Hence, the second question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
