9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 937X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the estimate adopted by the Assessing Officer was on high side and that too without any material. 4. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition in respect unaccounted jewellery as undisclosed income to the extent of Rs. 76,115/ - out of the addition of Rs. 1,58,598/ - made by the Assessing Officer. 4.1 In so doing the Ld. CIT (Appeals) did not appreciate the facts material on record. 5. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition I of Rs. 22,50,000/- as undisclosed income in respect of 1,50,000 shares Arrochem Silvassa Ltd. 6. The Ld.CIT (A) in confirming the addition did not appreciate the facts, material and evidence on record. 6. The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 60,85,800/- out of the addition of Rs. 82,27,100/- as undisclosed income in respect of 1,12,500 shares of Phar East Laboratories Ltd. 6.1 In confirming the said addition the Ld. CIT (Appeals) did not consider the facts, material and evidence on record. 7. The Ld. eIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition u/s 68 of Rs. 74,200/ - out of Rs. 1,51,404/ - made by the Assessing Officer. 7. 1 In confirming the same the Ld. CIT (Appeals) did not appreciate the fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of the premises that were not such as to envisage any practical difficulty for search on the first date of the search on 17.12.1999 so as to put a restrained order in terms of section 132(3) as has been done in this case. In doing so, in pursuance to the search action under section 132Jl), the search party had circumvented the provisions of law. Hence, it cannot be taken into account so as to prolong the effective date for the completion of block assessment proceeding. Such action is not permissible as per law. 5. In this regard, the appellant's representative has relied upon the decision in the case of CIT V/s Mrs.Sandhya B. Nayak & Others 253 ITR 534 (Born); CIT Vs. Dr C Balakrishnan Nair and othes 237 ITR 70 (Ker.) and certain tribunal decisions. It was submitted that in view of the the judicial decisions, the search proceedings cannot be held to have continued beyond 17/12/1999 and, therefore, the Assessing Officer was under legal obligation to complete the assessment proceedings and pass the assessment order under section 158BC of the Act on or before 31.12.2001. It was submitted that under the circumstance, the impugned assessment order made on 27/02/2002 has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arified in the Explanation below the said sub-section. 8. Further, in respect of the order of restraint under section 132(3) of the Act dated 17.12.1999 as well as the conclusion of the search proceedings vide the panchanama dated 14.2.2000 the appellant at no stage had challenged the proceedings of the Department under section 132(3) of the Act. Even before the Assessing Officer, the proceeding after December 1999 when as per the appellant's representative's version, the proceedings ought to have been concluded was not challenged and the appellant had from time to time given reply and furnished the details called for by the Assessing Officer in this regard. Hence, the case of the appellant is clearly distinguishable on facts from the case of Mrs. Sandhya B.Nayak (Supra) in respect of which the decision has been rendered which has been sought to be relied upon by the appellant's representative to submit that the assessment order under appeal is barred by limitation. 9. In their decision in the case of CIT Vs. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd 197 ITR 297 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex court have held that it is neither desirable nor permissible to pick out a word or sentence fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ealed by an order passed u/s 132(3) of the Act on 23.12.1999 in pursuance of the order dated 12.12.1999 issued in the name of bank. The counsel of the assessee further submitted that bank locker was opened and operated on 14.02.2000 and the contents(jewellery) of the locker were got valued at Rs. 45,100/- from the departmental valuer in the presence of assessee's wife by the Shri M.V Patil. The prohibitary order u/s 132(3) dated 23.12.1999 was vacated on 14.02.2000. The jewellery found in the bank locker as well as kept at the residence aggregating to Rs. 4,68,954/- was handed over to the assessee's wife in terms of Panchnama dated 14.2.2002. The ld. Counsel submitted that panchanama dated 14.2.2000 vacated the prohibitory order resultantly list of jewellery was prepared and signed by Mr.M V Patil who was authorised officer to search bank locker and to pass the prohibitory order dated 23.12.1999. His role got over as soon as the bank locker was opened and operated. On 14.2.2000 nothing was seized and therefore the search has concluded on 17.12.1999 or at the most on 23.12.1999 and can not be extended to 14.02.2000 when only bank locker was opened and nothing was seized. The ld. Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opposing the arguments of the ld AR, submitted that the assessment was made well within time as the last punchnama was drawn on 14.2.2000 and therefore the search was concluded on 14.02.2000 and not on 17.12.1999 or 23.12.1999 as submitted by the ld AR. The ld Dr submitted that on 14.02.2000 the locker was operated and jewellary found therein and valued at Rs. 45,100/- . The entire jewellary which was found at the residence of the assessee on 17.12.1999 and 14.02.2000 was handed over to the assessee on 14.02.2000. Taking the above facts in totality , the search started on 17.02.2000 was concluded on 14.02.2000 and the assessment was framed on 27.02.2000 which was well within limitation in terms of section 158BE(1)(b) of the Act. In defence of his arguments the ld DR relied on a number of decisions namely (i) VLS Finance Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (2016) 68 Taxman.com 368(SC) (ii) Navin Kumar Aggarwal Vs CIT ITA No 11 of 2005 dated 12.05.2015 and (iii)CIT Vs Mukund ray Shah. Finally the ld Dr prayed that the order of CITA) be upheld. 7. We have heard the rival parties and perused the relevant records placed before us including the judicial decisions referred and relied by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd and seized on 14.2.2000. Moreover it is also clearly mentioned in the punchnama dated 17.12.1999 and dated 23.12.1999 that the search was finally concluded and not on 14.2.2000. The case of the assessee also find support from the decision in the case of Sandhya P. Naik (supra) that limitation shall not extend to the date of passing order u/s 132(3) of the Act. The time limit for making assessment can not extended to the date of passing a restraint order. In Mrs. Sandhya B. Nailk & Others (supra) the search was conducted and concluded on 16.10.1996 and assessment was completed on 31.12.1997. The assessee challenged the assessment being time barred by limitation on the ground that the same should have been made within one year from the conclusion of the search i.e the assessment should have been completed on or before 31.10.1997 as the search was completed on 20.10.1996. In this case also an order u/s 132(3) was passed on seizing all articles found in a cupboard and was sealed accordingly. Thereafter some silver items were released and the remaining were again sealed by further order passed u/s 132(3) of the Act on 31.12.1997. The revenue claimed that the search was commenced on 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
