9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 1119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f investment made by the assessee in purchasing a Flat No. F-301, Chandan Park, Citylight Area, Surat." 3. The assessee preferred the appeal on the following effective grounds: "1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in taking action u/s 158BD of the Act. 2. On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in taking action u/s 158BD of the Act after lapse of about 5 years. 3. On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act after lapse of abut 5 years. He has submitted that the block assessment in the case of Ohm Developers was completed on 30-11-2001 and referred to order of ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench "D" in the group cases of Vimal Vadilal Shah & Ors in IT(SS)A. No10 & 28/Ahd/2008 & Ors order dated 21-05-2010 whereby, in the group cases relating to M/s Ohm Developers proceedings u/s 158BD have been quashed. Learned counsel for the assessee, therefore, submitted that the proceedings against the assessee may also be quashed accordingly. On the other hand, ld.DR relied upon the orders of authorities below. 6. On consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the view that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the order of ITAT, Ahmedabad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hed for the reason that notices u/s 158BD of the Act were issued in these cases long after completion of assessment in the case of person searched i.e. Ohm Developers." 7 We may also point out that recently the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in its unreported judgment in ITA No. 379 of 2010 dated 25-08-2010 in the case of CIT-I, Ludhiana vs M/s Parveen Fabrics Pvt Ltd dismissed the appeal filed by the department by passing the following order: "1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (B), Chandigarh (Hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") passed in I.T.(SS)A. No19/CHAND/2009 dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ludhiana v. Mridula, Prop. M/s Dhruv Fabrics, Ludhiana and it was observed: "the act no where specifically prescribes any time limit or limitation for initiation of proceedings under Section 158BD of the Act or for recording of satisfaction before taking action under that provision. The plain and reasonable construction that can be placed on the aforesaid provision would be that the recording of satisfaction for taking action against any other person under Section 158BD of the Act has to be between initiation of proceedings under section 158BC and before completion of block assessment under Section 158BC of the Act in the case of the person searched I would, thus, mean that the action contemplated under Section 158BD of the Act against a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
