9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 521X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pursuant to which he filed revised return for the block period 1991-92 to 2001- 02. The assessment in his case (hereafter referred to as "the main assessee") was completed on 29.08.2002. On 14.07.2003, apparently the Assessing Officer (AO) in the present case - dealing with the respondents' assessments - was supplied with information by the DCIT Central Circle-3. The assessee was concededly a third party and not the subject of search and seizure under Section 132. The notice was issued even later, on 14.10.2004. Apparently, the notice was served with some difficulty on 14.06.2005 to the assessee under Section 158BD. Thereafter, the assessment was completed on 30.06.2007 and an addition to the tune of Rs. 1.09 crores was sought to be made. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me of the appellant. In the result, the appeal is allowed." 4. It is urged on behalf of the revenue that the finding in the impugned order in effect mandates a period of limitation, and fetters the discretion of the AO who deals with their party's case when in fact no such period of limitation was prescribed for. Learned counsel relied upon Section 158BE to suggest that the period of limitation prescribed for completion of block assessment of such third parties commences only from the issuance of notice and ends two years from the end of the month from which such notice is served. So viewed, submitted counsel, the period of limitation in this case was in fact ended much after the assessment was actually completed in 2007. 5. Learned coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in respect of the primary individual, i.e. the searched person is controlled by Section 158BE(1) which is subject to well-defined exceptions under Explanation (1) to that provision. If the Revenue's logic were to prevail, while the authority to carry-out assessment in the case of third parties itself stems-out of a search conducted of the searched person, the AO (of the searched person) would be left free with untrammelled discretion to take-up the materials which he deems to be incriminating and forward to the concerned AO (of the third party) at his will and pleasure. Surely, such a startling and far-reaching consequence was not intended. The third reason why this Court rejects the Revenue is that the dissection of Section158BE in the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
