TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 959X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on 30th September, 1997 had been passed beyond the date of limitation specified in Section 158BE of the Act? 3. Whether the warrant signed by the Additional Director of Income Tax is without any authority? 2. Here itself we may point out that not only these questions are common to all these appeals, these appeals preferred by the Revenue are against the judgment dated 30.4.2008 vide which all the cases were decided. Since the issues have arisen in identical circumstances and similar background, our purpose would be served in taking note of the facts in ITA No.130/2009. 3. With a view to conduct searches on the assessee and its group companies (other assessees/respondents in other appeals), Director of Income Tax (Investigation) issued warrants of authorization on 27.6.1996. In the said warrants, authorization was given to search lockers/accounts of the assessee maintained with the Citi Bank. According to the Revenue, all these assessees, which belong to the same group, were involved in well-known Urea Scam. Search was conducted in the case of all these assessees. Therea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d no authority under Section 132 of the Act. c) All the block assessments had been completed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Act and therefore, barred by limitation. Challenging that order, present appeals are preferred. 5. In so far as first ground accepted by the Tribunal is concerned, according to the Tribunal, following infirmities were found in various warrants of authorisation:- i) In the case of M/s. Independent Courier Pvt. Ltd., name is incorrectly mentioned in the warrants as M/s. Independent Courier . Further, in the search warrant no details have been given as to the premises to be searched and the column prescribed for the said purpose has been left blank. ii) In respect of the assessee M/s. Harmony Psychitary Centre Pvt. Ltd., though the name is correctly mentioned, but the premises to be searched is stated as Citi Bank, New Delhi without mentioning the particular branch of the bank or the address. (iii) (iv) So far as M/s. Shilpi Securities Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Vaidahi Lease and Finance Pvt. Ltd. are concerned, names of these assessees are correctly mentioned but the premises to be searched are vaguely stated as Citi Bank, D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment, argued that these grounds were not taken before the AO and he had no occasion to adjudicate upon the same. Even in the appeal no such ground was given. As regards the alleged defects in the search warrants, our attention was invited to the chart filed during the course of hearing pointing out the exact defect noticed in each case. It is not denied that the words Pvt. Ltd.‟ were not added to the name of the company Independent Courier Pvt. Ltd., which omission cannot be said to be material and fatal to the proceedings especially when the account number tallied and the bank did not raise any objection at the time of execution in respect of this omission. The other alleged defect relates to the incomplete address of Citi Bank, New Delhi in search warrants in the cases of Shilpi Securities, Vaidahi Lease and Finance, Independent Courier and Harmony Psychiatry Centre Pvt. Ltd. In the case of Patliputra Investment, the address written is Citi Bank, Connaught Place, New Delhi , which could not be said to be incomplete. In this connection, he referred to para 3.11 of ITA No.337/2009 in the case of Independent Courier Pvt. Ltd. (this is illustrative and similar paras are in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imed by the Department in some warrants of other assessee companies. Moreover, in case of Kandla Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. the warrants were issued in three names which would demonstrate that purported warrants were issued blank making such warrants illegal. 12. We are of the opinion that undoubtedly the search warrants have to be assessee specific and premises should also be clearly stated so that they are discernible. Not only the particular assessee should be clearly discernible from the reading of these warrants, it also should be clear as to which premises are to be searched. Therefore, there is no difficulty in answering that where the premises to be searched are left blank, such warrants would be vague and thus, illegal. On this basis, in so far as the assessee M/s. Independent Courier Pvt. Ltd. is concerned, since no details were given as to the premises to be searched and the column for this purpose was left blank, the Tribunal was right in holding that search warrants would be illegal. 13. In other three cases the premises to be searched was mentioned as Citi Bank, New Delhi or Citi Bank, Delhi . The question is as to whether it is vague description. Answer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... executed. Block assessment was to be completed within one year from the end of the month and each last of the search warrant was executed. Search warrants were executed sometime in July, 1996. For example, in the case of M/s. Independent Courier Pvt. Ltd., the search warrant was executed on 9.7.1996. The assessee wants one year‟s period of limitation to be reckoned from that date as per which last date for completion of block assessment would be 31.7.1996. The case of the Department, on the other hand, was that amount was recovered from the bank only on 20.9.1996 which is recorded in the Panchnama and therefore, that would be the date from which limitation of one year would start and therefore, last date for completion of the block assessment would be 30.9.1997. 15. The Tribunal has, however, accepted the plea of the assessees. The date of 20.9.1996 is not taken into consideration on the ground that recovery of money from the bank in exercise of power of search under Section 132 has been held to be impermissible by the Supreme Court in KCC Software Limited (supra). 16. Mr. Sahni contended that reliance placed by the Tribunal on the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of Section 132(3) read with Section 132(5) of the Act. The position has become more clear after the insertion of the Explanation to Section 132(3) effective from July 1, 1995 that a restraint order does not amount to seizure. Therefore, by passing a restraint order, the time limit available for framing the order cannot be extended. 19. On the basis of these judgments, her submission is that the date of taking away the money illegally, cannot be termed in any manner as the date of execution of the search warrants. 20. We have considered the respective submissions in the light of the legal provisions as well as the judgments cited before us. As per Explanation 2 (a) to Section 158BE, execution of the search warrants has been explained as the date on which the search was concluded as recorded in the last Panchnama. The search warrants in these cases were executed on various dates as disclosed in the chart extracted above and the recovery of money from the bank in exercise of power of search was made on 20.9.1996 when the recovery of money took place. The Tribunal has not taken into consideration this date because of the reason that such recovery of money from the ban ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... read with Section 132(5) of the Act. This contention was specifically repelled. It was held that ,as noted above, since the revocation order passed under Section 132(3) was dated 29.6.2000 when the contents of almirah and cupboards were seized, that would be the date of reckoning for the purpose of limitation. We, thus, hold that the assessment was completed within the prescribed period of limitation and it was not time-barred. 21. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee have no application. As pointed out above, in CIT v. Mrs. Sandhya P. Naik (supra) the orders passed under Section 132 (3) were by the officers not authorised in this behalf and for this reason it was held that the date of the said order would not extend the period of limitation. Likewise, in B.K. Nowlakha and Ors. v. UOI (supra) the restraint orders were held to be invalid for want of approval of the Commissioner which was required to be obtained under Section 132(8)(a) for extension of the restraint beyond 60 days. Accordingly, we decide the question of limitation in favour of the Revenue and as a consequence set aside the judgment of the Tribunal on this ground. Re: Question No. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
