Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

CIT Versus J.H Finvest Pvt. Ltd, Texefx Marble Industries, Svil Mines Ltd.

2015 (12) TMI 627 - DELHI HIGH COURT

Validity of assessment under section 153A - whether the assessments were completed within the time stipulated therein? - Held that:- In the present case, as noted by the ITAT, there is only one authorisation which was issued on 20th March 2007. The panchnama drawn up on 23rd March 2007 shows that the search that commenced on that date i.e., 23rd March 2007 stood finally concluded on that date itself. It appears that no further authorisation had been issued for the search of the Assessees who are .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

search, the time period for conclusion of the assessment in terms of clause (i) of the second proviso to Section 153 B (1) of the Act does not get extended only because their names were included in the panchnama drawn up on 15th May 2007. It is possible that their names were included in the said panchnama drawn up on 15th May 2007 in order to avoid the consequence of expiry of the period of limitation which, as far as these Assessees are concerned, commenced on 23rd March 2007, when the search .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ese appeals by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are directed against the common order dated 30th May 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') in the appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross-objections filed by the Assessees for the Assessment Years (AYs) 2001-02 to 2007-08. 2. In these batch of appeals, the Assessees involved are J.H. Finvest Pvt. Ltd., Texefx Marble Industries (formerly known as J.H. Business & Products Pvt. Ltd.) and SVI .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

well. It appears that during the said search, the jewellery items of Mrs. Neena Jain, wife of Mr.Sanjay Jain were seized on 21st March 2007 and some part of the jewellery was released to her after preparing a valuation report dated 21st March 2007. The learned counsel for the Assessees has placed before the Court a compilation of documents containing, inter alia, the panchnamas drawn up in the course of the search. He states that these documents were part of the record of the case before the ITA .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

finally concluded/as temporarily concluded". In this particular para 8 the words "as temporarily concluded" have been omitted and there is a tick mark on the words "as finally concluded". 5. On the same day, a restraint order was passed under Section 132(3) of the Act, in respect of the jewellery items of Mrs. Neena Jain and Mrs. Shail Kumar Jain kept in some wooden cupboards in their residential premises. There were also restraint orders, communicated to the Managers of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Jain, Rim Zim Valley Products Ltd. In para 2, it was stated that the search "was in continuance of the proceedings on 22/3/07.......". Para 8 then states that "The search commenced on 15/5/07 at ....../pm . The proceedings were closed on 15/5/07 at 6.45 pm as finally concluded". It is not in dispute that the assessment orders pursuant to the said searches were passed on 24/31st December 2009. 6. The first question that arises for consideration was whether in terms of Section .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

153B (1) of the Act. It is pointed out that the names of the Assessees were included in the panchnama drawn up on 15th May 2007 although no fresh search authorisations qua any of them were issued. The case of the Revenue has been that the search did not conclude on 23rd March 2007 but on 15th May 2007. This was on account of the restraint orders claimed to have been validly passed on 23rd March 2007 in peculiar circumstances where either the person searched was not present or the witnesses were .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to be seized. If all actions of the search were completed and nothing was left to be done by the search party, then the action of the authorized officer under Section 132(3) would be illegal and consequently any panchnama prepared on the extended date of search, after lifting the restraint, would be of no consequence, for the purposes of computation of limitation under Section 153B of the Act. In particular, the ITAT referred to the decision of this Court in V.L.S. Finance Ltd. Vs. CIT 289 ITR 2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and address of the assesses in question have not been mentioned but in Panchnama dated 15/5/2007 drawn in pursuance to the executive of the said authorization letter dated 20/03/2007 names of all these assessees have been mentioned", the original authorisation letters issued on 20th March 2007 are not before the Court. The Court, therefore, proceeds on the basis that such authorisation had indeed been issued in the names of each of the Assessees. The panchnama drawn up on 23rd March 2007 s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version