TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 937X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elevant to the date of completion of the search. 2. During the course of hearing, nobody was present on behalf of the assessee, neither any adjournment was sought. We, therefore, disposed of the appeal ex.-parte, on merit after hearing the ld DR. 3. The facts of the case in brief are that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the Act in short ] was carried out at the residential premises of the assessee on 3.2.1999. During the course of search and seizure operation, certain incriminating documents had been seized. The Assessing Officer framed the assessment u/s 158 BC(c ) of the Act at an income of ₹ 33,22,690/- vide order dated 27.4.2001. Against the said order, the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e limit prescribed and hence, it was time barred. 4. The ld CIT(A) after consider the submissions of the assessee observed that search was conducted on 3.2.1999 and as per Panchnama of the said date, books of account and documents as per para No.5 (b) (i) of the Panchnama were found whereas other valuable articles, things including money were found as per para 5(b)(ii) of the Panchnama dated 3.2.1999. He also observed that only books of account and documents were seized but no cash or jewellery or silver articles or other valuable items were seized. He also observed that statement of the assessee was recorded (Para No.6 of the Panchnama) on 3.2.1999 and para No.8 of the Panchnama dated 3.2.1999 revealed that the search commenced on 3.2.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffectively concluded on 3.2.1999. The ld CIT(A) held that the time limit for completion of the block assessment will have to be reckoned from 3.2.1999 on which date the search was concluded against the assessee. Consequently, the block assessment order was required to be passed on or before 28.2.2001 as against which the block assessment order was passed on 27.4.1001. Reliance was placed on the following case laws:- i) ACIT vs Ramesh Chand Soni - 81 TTJ 253 (ITAT, Jodhpur) ii) Anantha N. Naik Vs. ACIT - 66 TTJ 533 (ITAT, Jodhpur) iii) CIT vs Mrs Sandhya T. Naik Ors - 253 ITR 534 (Bom) 5. The ld CIT(A) accordingly treated the block assessment order passed as time barred. Now, the Department is in appeal. 6. The ld. DR subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a similar issue, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs White White Minerals P. Ltd [2011] 330 ITR 172 (Raj) has held as under:- Where after revoking the prohibitory order on December 21, 2002 there was nothing to show that any fresh prohibitory order was passed, nor that the search remained incomplete or was continued on any subsequent date in the close proximity or in continuity. It has further been held that - since on January 3, 2003 nothing was done except preparing panchnama it would not extend the time limit for passing an order of block assessment. 8. The Special Leave Petition filed against the said order has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in [2010] 322 ITR (St ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
