9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ws: 2.1. On 12.12.2002, there was a search and seizure in the premises of one R.Ganesan. During the course of the same, it was found that the said R.Ganesan along with 4 others was carrying on sand quarrying business and they made certain capital contributions. Based on the documents recovered, notice under section 158BD was issued on 17.02.2005 to the respondent / assessee viz., V.R.Senniappan and others in the status of 'Association of Persons' (AoP), requiring them to file return of income. In response to the same, the AoP filed their return on 23.03.2005 admitting an undisclosed income of Rs. 1,04,00,010/- from sand quarrying business. After scrutiny of the same, the assessing officer completed the assessment under section 158B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s prescribed under Section 158BD of the Income Tax Act? 2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that there is no satisfaction on the part of the A.O., when issuing the notice under Section 158 BD and hence the notice is invalid in law." 4.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials placed before this court. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent / assessee. 5.Admittedly, based on the search and seizure operation conducted in the premises of one R.Ganesan, on 12.12.2002, the respondent issued the notice under section 158BD to the respondent / assessee only on 17.02.2005, requiring them to file return of income in respect of the sand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the ground of delay and it will be for the relevant officer to consider the question whether in the facts and circumstances of the case notice or demand for recovery was made within reasonable period. No hard and fast rules can be laid down in this regard as the determination of the question will depend upon the facts of each case." 7.Further, it is to be noted that the issue involved herein has already been considered and answered in favour of the assessee, in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-I v. V.D.Muralidharan [(2015) 53 taxmann.com 140 (Madras)], the relevant passage of which is profitably extracted below: "9. In the case on hand, block assessment in respect of the Sree Gokulam Chits and Finance Company Limited w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment in the case of third parties itself stems out of a search conducted of the searched person, the Assessing Officer (of the searched person) would be left free with untrammelled discretion to take up the materials which he deems to be incriminating and forward to the concerned Assessing Officer (of the third party) at his will and pleasure. Surely, such a startling and far-reaching consequence was not intended. The third reason why this court rejects the Revenue is that the dissection of section 158BE in the manner suggested would mean that section 158BE(2) would stand on its own without any period of limitation. Instead of this, the approach of the Tribunal appears to have been to hold the Assessing Officer (of the searched person) w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
