9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ases of these assessees are bad in law and void ab initio. In addition to these legal contentions, the assessees have also taken the grounds on merit. So far as the legal ground is concerned, it goes to the root of the matter, hence we heard the parties on these legal grounds. After hearing was concluded on the legal ground, it was made clear to both the parties that in case the assessees do not succeed on the legal ground, then these appeals will be re-posted for hearing on grounds taken on merit. 3. The facts pertaining to search action reveal from the record are as under. Shri Ramkumar B. Agarwal is the Chairman of Agrasen Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. At this stage, it is not necessary for us to go into the reasons and background as to why the search action u/s 132(1) was taken against these three assessees by the Department. It is suffice to state that on the investigation in case of other person, it was found that FDRs were created by the Bank on the fictitious names and against those FDRs, the loans were sanctioned. In the investigation, it was noticed that assessee namely Shri Ramkumar B. Agarwal who was the Chairman of the Agrasen Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. was also invol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nama was drawn only for getting the extension of time limit. He submits that nothing was seized and even there is no mention of verification of alleged record in the sealed cupboard. Nothing is mentioned in the Panchnama whether prohibitory order passed u/s. 132(3) was lifted. He, therefore, pleaded that on 1.11.2002, nothing happened but on that day, it was shown as search and seizure was finally concluded. Ld Counsel relied on the following decisions : 1) CIT Vs. Plastica Enterprises, 180 Taxman 293 (Bom.) 2) ACIT, CC 2, Jodhpur Vs. Shreeram Lime ProductsLtd, IT (SS) A. No.27/Jd/2006 dated 11.6.2012 He pleaded for cancelling the assessment orders. Per contra, the Ld. D.R. supported the orders of the authorities below. 5. The core issue in controversy is whether the assessment orders passed in the case of these assessees' u/s. 158BC (c) of the Act dated 30th November 2004 are time barred being beyond the period of limitation provide u/s. 158BE of the Act? Prior to 1.6.2003, the assessments framed in consequence of search and seizure operation, carried out u/s. 132(1) were governed under Chapter XIV-A of the Act. The time limit is prescribed for completion of the Block A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reproduce here the relevant paragraphs from the said judgment : "2. The learned Counsel for the Respondent produced before us the Xerox copy of the Panchanama dated 5th August, 2000, which categorically mentions that the stock valued at Rs.1,61,55,035/- was seized on that day. It appears that the Department is seeking to rely on the subsequent Panchanama dated 20th September, 2000 which only mentions that the Inventory of Stock valued at Rs.1,61,55,035/- as per the inventory made on 4/5th August, 2000. In fact, on 20th September, 2000 nothing has been done by the Revenue. The Revenue has merely inspected the premises and found the seal to be in-tact. Paragraph No. 2 of the said panachanama dated 20th September, 2000 mentions that, "2. As today's search was in continuance of the proceedings on 31st August, 2000, we along with the aforesaid authorized officers before the commencement of proceeding today, inspected the seals which had been placed on that date and found them to be intact/tampered with as narrated in the enclosures. Annexure-2 of the said panchanama dated 20th September, 2008 mentions that; 'Stock valued at Rs.1,61,55,035/- (Rupees one crore sixty one lakhs, fifty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of White & White Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The search itself in the present case was completed on 21st December, 2002. The details of proceedings happened on 03.01.2003 and already described in the details submitted by the Ld AR which have been reproduced above. The above conclusion is also supported by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v., SK Katyal (supra) which was later on followed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v,. D.D. Axles Pvt. Ltd. reported at 323 ITR 558 wherein a search was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 29th August, 1996 which was concluded on 30th August, 1996. A panchnama was drawn on 29th August, 1996 when books of accounts and other documents were seized and on the same day a restrain order was also passed with regard to an almirah that has been seized. The restrain order was extended till 18th November, 1996 on which date a panchnama was drawn and nothing was seized from the premises of the assessee. On 18th November, 1996 by an order, the restrain placed on the almirah was vacated. The assessment was passed on 28th November, 1997 and on these facts it was held that the search in itself was completed on 30 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
