TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 556X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rious cases such prohibitory orders are being passed by the Revenue and according to unanimous view taken by the Courts more particularly Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, that if on the date when such prohibitory orders are vacated, it would be relevant to see the action of the department and if no seizure is made on that date and nothing is done except lifting the prohibitory orders then the last punchnama drawn on that date would not be relevant to compute the limitation period for framing the assessment. We are of the opinion that the learned CIT(A) has committed an error in not accepting the submission of the assessee that the computation of the period of limitation should commence on 1st March, 2007 when for all practical purposes the authorization issued by the department for search in the case of the assessee was executed and subsequent punchnama drawn on 28th April, 2007 could not be considered as relevant for computing the period of limitation for framing the assessment. Therefore, we reverse the order of learned CIT(A) on this issue and it is held that the assessments framed by the Assessing Officer on 29th December, 2009 in respect of all the impugned assessment yea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s appeals has contested the additions which have been sustained by the learned CIT(A). 5. In this manner, both the parties have filed Cross Appeals which were argued together by them. These appeals were heard only on the ground relating to validity or otherwise of these assessments on the ground of limitation as the same is legal ground and if it is found that the assessments are time barred then deciding the merits of the additions will not be required. Therefore, for the sake of brevity, other grounds taken by both the parties are not reproduced. 6. The facts which would be required to dispose of ground no. 2, which has already been reproduced, are as under: 6.1 The assessee is an individual deriving income from pension from Indian Navy, remuneration/consultation fees from various companies and income from interest and other sources. A search and seizure action under Section 132(1) of the Act was carried out on 28th February, 2007 in Suresh Nanda Group of cases and such search also include residential premises of the assessee. A Punchnama dated 1st March, 2007 was drawn in the case of the assessee wherein cash amounting to ₹ 18 lacs and some loose papers were seize ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade on or before 31st December, 2008 as per second proviso to Section 153B(1) of the Act. It is the case of the assessee that the assessments in the present cases have been concluded on 29th December, 2009 which is a period beyond 31st December, 2008, therefore, the assessment proceedings are barred by limitation and are required to be cancelled. For this purpose, reliance is placed by learned AR on the following decisions: 1) CIT Vs. D.D. Axles (P.) Ltd. [2010) 323 ITR 558 (Delhi HC): In the said case, a search was conducted on 29th August, 1996 which was concluded on 30th August, 1996. A panchnama was drawn on 29th August, 1996 when books of account and other documents were seized and a restraint order was also passed in respect of an almirah which was extended till 18th November, 1996 on which date last panchnama was drawn and restraint placed on almirah was vacated. On that date, nothing further was seized from assessee's premises. Block assessment order was passed on 28th November, 1997. Tribunal held that for all practical purposes search was concluded on 29/30 August, 1996 and last authorization was executed on 29th August, 1996. It was held that one year timelimit fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was no explanation forthcoming from revenue as to what had transpired from 31-10-2000 to 23-12-2000, so as to enable the High Court to take different view from that of Tribunal. Thus, it was to be concluded that impugned order passed by Tribunal was correct and deserved to be upheld. 4) CIT v. T.S. Chandrashekar Through Lrs [2009] 221 CTR 385 (KAR. HC) In the said case, as per panchnama drawn on 12-12-1995, cash was seized and it was held that the same was to be treated as last panchnama for purpose of computing limitation period and panchnama as drawn on further search later-on on 19-1-1996, 7-2-1996 and 12-2-1996, when no seizure took place, could not be treated as last panchnama for computing period of limitation. 5) Nandlal M. Gandhi v. ACIT [2008] 115 ITO 1 (MUM.) (TM)) - 118 TTJ 289 In the said case, a search and seizure action under section 132 was carried out at premises of assessee on 28-7-1997 which continued till 29-7-1997 when a panchnama was prepared in which it was stated that only books of account and documents were seized and no seizure was made in respect of jewellery and share certificates. However, prohibitory order under section 132(3) was issued in re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns for search under section 132 or for requisition under section 132A was executed; (b) in respect of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted under section 132 or requisition is made under section 132A, within a period of two years from the end of the financial year in which the last of the authorisations for search under section 132 or for requisition under section 132A was executed : [Provided that .] [Provided further that in the case where the last of the authorisations for search under section 132 or for requisition under section 132A was executed during the financial year commencing [on or after the 1st day of April, 2004 but before the 1st day of April, 2010],- (i) the provisions of clause (a) or clause (b) of this sub-section shall have effect as if for the words two years the words twenty-one months had been substituted; (ii) the period of limitation .. 8.2 It was pleaded by learned AR that language used by legislature for computing the limitation period is pari materia, in both the above mentioned sections; therefore, decisions rendered in respect of the provisions of Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated. On these facts, it is the case of the assessee that the assessment was required to be made within a period of 21 months from the end of the financial year in which the last of the authorizations for search under Section 132 of the Act was executed and in the present case, if the first authorization for search is considered to be concluded on 1st March, 2007 then the assessment would be required to be made within a period of 21 months reckoning from 1st April, 2007 which will end on 31st December, 2008, whereas the assessment in the present case framed on 29th December, 2009 which is barred by limitation. For contending so, the reliance has been placed on the decisions recorded in para 7 of this order. 11. We have carefully considered such submissions of the assessee. The language of provisions of Sections 158BE and 153B of the Act, so as it relate to computation of limitation, is same. What is considered in the decisions relied upon by learned AR is the execution of the authorizations in respect of a search which is relevant to decide the question regarding limitation to pass the assessment orders in such cases. Procedures of conducting search remain same under old provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
