TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 158BC of the Act, it is not necessary to issue authorization u/s. 132 or make requisition u/s. 132A separately in the name of each person - Authorization or requisition in the name of more than one person is permissible - names of these assessees are not appearing in the authorization/requisition, proceedings initiated u/s. 158BC of the Act against them are void ab-initio – Relying upon CIT v. Ms. Pushpa Rani [2004 (1) TMI 68 - DELHI High Court] - where no search warrant is issued in name of assessee proceedings initiated u/s. 158BC are ab-initio void and without jurisdiction – Decided in favour of Assessee. - IT (SS) A Nos. 138/Ahd/2005 140/Ahd/2005 141/Ahd/2005 145/Ahd/2005 146/Ahd/2005 149/Ahd/2005 152/Ahd/2005 - - - Dated:- 29-4-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mes and another legal issue of non- issuance of notice u/s 143 (2) can be raised, is the question for which matter was heard. Modified to this extent only. Rest of the interim order stands as it was. We order accordingly .. 3. Revenue challenged the above modified interim order before Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court. Special Civil Application of the Revenue was dismissed by Hon ble High Court by holding as under:- 4. Heard Shri K. M. Parikh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner. As such, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner is not in a position to point out what prejudice will be caused to the department. Ample opportunity will be given to the petitioner to meet with the additional ground, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel relied upon the following case laws:- i) CIT vs. Dr. A.K. Bansal-355 ITR 513 (All) ii) Trilok Singh Dhillon v CIT-332 ITR 185 (Chattisgarh) iii) MB Lal v CIT-279 ITR 298 (Del) iv) Ritz Threatre v ITO-236 CTR 246 (Del) v) U.S. Srinastava Educational Memorial Society v ACIT-82 TTJ 471 (Luck) vi) Saheli Synthics Pvt. Ltd v CIT-302 ITR 126 (Guj) vii) Basudeo Prasad Agarwalla v ITO- 180 ITR 388 (Cal) viii) Shri Vindhya Vasini Prasad Gupta v CIT- 186 ITR 253 (All) xi) CIT v S.V. Divakar-201 ITR 914 (Orissa) 5. In reply to above assessee s contention was that assessee was not barred from raising a legal ground at any stage of the proceedings. Placing reliance on the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of: Arun Choksi, Sanjay Choksi and family and Jolly Tea (india) Ltd., and Jolly group of companies, It is clear from the above that none of the asssessee s name is appearing in above narration. The issue to be decided by us in these appeals is whether in the absence of names of the assessees on the warrant authorizing search can proceedings u/s. 158BC be initiated against them or not. To decide the issue the provisions of section 292CC of the Income Tax Act inserted w.e.f. 1st April, 1976 are relevant and for the sake of convenience the same are reproduced as under:- 292CC. Authorisation and assessment in case of search of requisition. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act- (i) it shall not be necessary to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
