TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 620X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olding that the assessment made herein under Chapter XIV-B is well within the period of limitation, as provided for under Section 158BE (1)(b) - against assessee. - Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.1257 of 2005 and 1128 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 21-6-2012 - Mrs.JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, Mr.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU, JJ. For Appellant: T.C.(A)No.1128/10 : Mr.T.Ravikumar Standing Counsel for Income Tax For Respondent in : Mr.G.Ashokpathy C O M M O N J U D G M E N T CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee in T.C.A.No.1257 of 2005 has filed a memo dated 6th June, 2012 stating that the minor P.Balaji has now become major. The said memo is recorded. 2. The Revenue and the assessee have filed the above Tax Case (Appeals) challenging the order of the Tribunal. The assessment herein relates to block assessment for the block period 1988-89 to 1997-98. 3. This Court, by order dated 12.12.2005, admitted T.C.(A)No.1257 of 2005, filed by the Revenue, on the following substantial questions of law: "1.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that for the purpose of calculation of limitation to c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here was no assessment made in the name of Shanti in her own rights; that the assessment framed was in respect of the deceased person; the items included as undisclosed income of the deceased were the assets belonging to the estate of the deceased. The Tribunal further pointed out that the minor child along with his paternal grandmother were the legal representatives of the estate of the deceased Pandian; that the mere non-mentioning of the legal heir, per se, would not, make the search illegal. The Tribunal further pointed out that the Panchnama issued on 11th September, 1997 was with regard to the locker, which stood in the name of Shanti as well as her divorced husband and that the said Shanti, in her capacity as a natural guardian of the minor child, represented his interest. Consequently, the claim of the assessee, as regards the improper or illegal initiation of search by reason of non-observance of the provisions, was dismissed. However, on the plea of limitation, the Tribunal pointed out that the prohibitory order in respect of bank account was made on 11.9.1997, which was lifted subsequently. 6. Referring to the decision reported in 131 ITR 506 (L.Devarajan V. Tamil Na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) in the case of requisition under section 132A, on the actual receipt of the books of account or other documents or assets by the Authorised Officer." 9. The above-said provision came up for consideration before the Karnataka High Court in the decision reported in (2011) 339 ITR 210 (C.Ramaiah Reddy V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (IMV). The Karnataka High Court elaborately dealt with the object and introduction of Explanation 2 to Sub-Clause (1) to Section 158BE of the Income Tax Act. As is evident from the reading of the provisions under Section 158 BE read with Explanation 2, the period of two years limitation in respect of search carried on, on or after 1st January, 1997, has to be calculated from the end of the last month in which last of the authorisations for search was executed. The date of execution is explained in the Explanation as the date on which the search was concluded, as recorded in the last panchnama drawn in relation to any person in whose case warrant of authorisation has been issued. Thus, if there are more than one authorisation and the search is conducted on different dates as per the authorisations, the starting point for the purpose of calcula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar and plain and the interpretation to be placed by the courts should be in harmony with such an intention. Therefore, one authorisation is to be issued in respect of one premises in pursuance of which there can be only one search and such a search is concluded, when the searching party comes out of the premises, which is evidenced by drawing up a panchnama. When there are multiple places to search and when multiple authorisations are issued, on different dates or on the same date or in respect of the same premises more than one authorisation is issued on different dates, the last panchnama drawn in proof of conclusion of search in respect of the authorisation is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of limitation for block assessment. The Court concluded that ....... (4) The period of limitation starts on the date on which the last of authorisation has been executed and not when the authorised officer states that the search is finally concluded. Putting a prohibitory order under sec- tion 132(3) does not elongate the starting point of limitation." 11. Similar view was also taken in the decision reported in (2010) 328 ITR 320 (Commissioner of Income-Tax V. Anil M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the law declared by the Karnataka High Court in the decision reported (2011) 339 ITR 210 (C.Ramaiah Reddy V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (IMV); Delhi High Court in the decision reported in (2010) 328 ITR 320 (Commissioner of Income-Tax V. Anil Minda) and so too the Kerala High Court in the decision reported in (1999) 238 ITR 501 (T.O.Abraham and Co. and another V. Assistant Director of Income-Tax (Investigation) and others) are concerned, we respectfully agree with the views expressed by the High Courts and on a reading of the plain words available in Section 158 BE read with Explanation 2, we have no hesitation in holding that in the case of search, the conclusion of the search as recorded in the last panchnama with reference to the authorisation issued would be the starting point for the purpose of computing the limitation for finalising the block assessment. 16. As held in the decisions of the Karnataka High Court and the Delhi High Court cited supra, if there are more than one authorisation for search, it is the conclusion of the search as recorded in the last panchnama, which would be relevant and not the date on which the authorisation was issued. In other wor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
