TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia, the father of the Respondent, there was no separate search warrant in the name of the Respondent. The panchnama dated 7th July 2006 with reference to search of locker No. 111 of the Respondent, refers to the said proceedings being in continuation of the earlier search proceedings which took place on 23rd June 2006. The search proceedings on 23rd June 2006 was on the basis of the search warrant issued in the name of the father of the Respondent and not the Respondent. As already noted, the Revenue has been unable to produce till date any record to show that there was any search warrant issued in the name of the Respondent. Respondent’s contention is correct that with the Department not having proceeded to search the locker No. 111 on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as issued against Mr. Raj Kumar Singhania, the father of the Respondent Assessee who was unmarried at the relevant time. The Court has been shown a copy of the panchnama drawn on the date of the search i.e.23rd June 2006. It shows that the warrant was issued in the name of Mr. Raj Kumar Singhania and the place to be searched indicated as 104, New Rajdhani Enclave, Delhi. The search appears to have commenced at 8.15 am and concluded at 5.15 pm on that very date. Inter alia, during the course of the search, certain keys of bank lockers were found in the said residential premises. One of the keys pertained to locker No.111, Canara Bank, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi in the name of the Respondent Assessee. It appears that on that date itself the said lock ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against her under Section 153A of the Act would not arise. 5. It is seen from the order of both Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [ CIT (A) ] and the ITAT that this issue was specifically raised by the Assessee throughout the proceedings. It was for this reason that on the previous date i.e. 10th August 2015, this Court passed the following order: 1. The contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent is that in terms of Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 112 of the Income Tax Rules 1962 it was incumbent on the Appellant to demonstrate, by producing the relevant file that there was a separate search warrant issued in the name of Respondent Assessee under Section 132. He submits that it is not sufficient ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n continuation of the earlier search proceedings which took place on 23rd June 2006. The search proceedings on 23rd June 2006 was on the basis of the search warrant issued in the name of the father of the Respondent and not the Respondent. As already noted, the Revenue has been unable to produce till date any record to show that there was any search warrant issued in the name of the Respondent. 9. This Court is of the view that the Respondent s contention is correct that with the Department not having proceeded to search the locker No. 111 on 23rd June 2006 itself and having completed the search proceedings on that date by 5.15 pm, if it thereafter proposed to search locker No. 111 belonging to the Respondent, it ought to have issued a s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
