TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 397X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14th September, 1998 was fully executed. After 15th September, 1998 there was no search or seizure. On 13th October, 1998 a prohibitary order was passed under Section 132(3) regarding the computer CPU of the respondent/ assessee which was revoked on 14th December, 1998. The first appellate authority had rightly held that passing of prohibitory order and revocation thereof were wholly irrelevant for the purpose of determining limitation under Section 158BE. Tribunal had considered the submission of the Revenue regarding Explanation 2 to Section 158BE but did not accept the same and rightly so. Finding returned by the first appellate authority as affirmed by the Tribunal is a finding of fact and we do not find any element of perversity in such finding of fact. In the absence thereof, no question of law, much less any substantial question of law, can be said to arise therefrom, there being concurrent findings of facts by the two lower appellate authorities. - INCOME TAX APPEAL (IT) NO.1101 OF 2017 - - - Dated:- 12-2-2020 - UJJAL BHUYAN MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. Mr. Arvind Pinto, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. Prakul Khurana with Ms.Ankita Sovani i/by M/s R V J Associa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellate authority, contending that the said assessment order passed on 27th December, 2000 was beyond the limitation period of two years, the search having taken place on 15th September, 1998. After an elaborate discussion the first appellate authority concluded that the search which was carried out pursuant to warrant of authorization dated 14th September, 1998 was executed on 15th September, 1998 itself. Therefore, having regard to the limitation of two years from the end of the month in which the authorization was executed, the first appellate authority held that the time limit for passing the assessment order under Section 158BC was available till 30th September, 2000 only. The assessment order passed on 27th December, 2000 was beyond the limitation period of two years and accordingly, it was annulled vide the appellate order dated 11th September, 2002. 7. Aggrieved thereby Revenue went in appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the order dated 26th July, 2013 affirmed the view taken by the first appellate authority by holding that the search operations were over in the month of September, 1998. The limitation period of two years was available till 30th September, 2000. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A made on or after 1st January, 1997 should be passed within two years from the end of the month in which the last of the authorizations for search or requisition was executed. Section 158BE(1)(b), which is relevant and as it stood at the relevant time, is extracted hereunder:- 158BE-(1) The order under section 158BC shall be passed- (a) ... (b) within two years from the end of the month in which the last of the authorisations for search under section 132 or for requisition under section 132A, as the case may be, was executed in cases where a search is initiated or books of account or other documents or any assets are requisitioned on or after the 1st day of January, 1997. 16. As per Explanation 2 it has been declared that the authorization referred to in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to have been executed, in the case of search, on the conclusion of search as recorded in the last panchanama drawn in relation to any person in whose case the warrant of authorization has been issued. 17. Having noticed the relevant legal provisions as above, we may now advert to the facts of the present case. 18. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnected with the search operation was done on 13.10.98 and 14.12.98. 20. Referring to a decision of this court in CIT Vs. Mrs. Sandhya P. Naik, 253 ITR 534 , the first appellate authority held that the warrant of authorization having being executed on 15th September, 1998, the limitation period of two years for passing assessment order under Section 158BE was available till 30th September, 2000. The block assessment order passed on 27th December, 2000 was thus beyond limitation and was accordingly annulled by holding as under:- 23. As I have concluded that the search was completed and warrant of authorization dated 14.9.1998 was executed on 15.9.1998 itself, the assessment order, could have been framed by the AO till 30.9.2000 only. The order dated 27.12.2000 passed by the AO, which is beyond the period of two years and is barred by limitation is thus not maintainable and is therefore annulled. 21. While annulling the assessment order as above the first appellate authority observed that if for an indefinite period a search is continued under the whims of the searching party without any real purpose or for any collateral purpose and if the search party goes on visi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f two years from the end of the month in which the authorizations for search was executed would mean the last panchanama drawn in respect of such search which therefore is indicative of a scenario where a number of panchanamas are drawn in relation to the search. Therefore, in the case of multiple panchanamas being drawn it is the last panchanama drawn on the conclusion of the search which would be relevant for the purpose of computation of the limitation period of two years in terms of Section 158BE(1)(b) of the Act. 24. Having noticed the above, we may also refer to Rule 112 of the Rules which lay down the procedure following search and seizure carried out under Section 132. What is of relevance is sub-Rule (7). Sub-Rule (7) says that the search as contemplated under Section 132(1) shall be made in the presence of witnesses as provided in the rules and a list of all things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which they were respectively found shall be prepared by the authorized officer and signed by such witnesses but no person witnessing a search shall be required to attend as a witness of the search in any proceedings under the Act unless specifically su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
