TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 1166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ARADHE AND HON BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD ... APPELLANTS (BY MR. E.I.SANMATHI, ADV.) RESPONDENT (MR. V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV.) JUDGMENT ALOK ARADHE J., Mr. E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the revenue. Mr.V.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for the assessee. 2. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act , for short) has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2004-05. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.09.2012 on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in annull ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceedings initiated under Section 153A of the Act are illegal as the Search was illegal and prayed for dismissal of the proceedings. The Assessing Officer, however, did not find any merit in the submissions made by the assessee and thereafter, framed the Assessment vide Order dated 31.12.2008 under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act and total income of the assessee was assessed at ₹ 18,98,47,383/-. The assessee thereupon, approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by filing an appeal. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by the Order dated 11.02.2010 dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The assessee thereupon approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal , ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee while inviting the attention of the Court to paragraph No.12 of the Order passed by the Tribunal submitted that in fact a discrepancy has crept in the Order of the Tribunal inasmuch as the assessee had never produced the Warrant of Authorization before the Tribunal but had produced a copy of the Panchanama, which has been described as Warrant of Authorization. It is further submitted that the assesse is not in possession of the Warrant of Authorisation and is not in a position to produce the same. However, the Tribunal has proceeded on an incorrect factual premise. 6. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the records. 7. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Tribunal reads as under:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
