TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ras Chaudhary For the Respondent : Mr O. S. Bajpai CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON?BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. These appeals have been filed by the revenue against the common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 30.11.2007 in IT (SS) A. No. 1/Del/2004 (in respect of the assessee Deepak Aggarwal) and IT (SS) A. No. 204/Del/2004 (in respect of assessee Mangla Marbles and Granite Pvt. Ltd). Sh. Deepak Aggarwal is one of the directors in Mangla Marbles and Granite Pvt. Ltd. 2. The common issue that arises for consideration in these appeals is with regard to the provisions of Section 158 BE, Explanation 2 read with Section 158 BE (1) (b). A search under Section 132 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the search operation on 31.10.2000 at room located in Ward No. 1, House No. 6/4, Mehrauli, Delhi is hereby revoked for the purpose of continuation of search. The seals placed have been found intact." 3. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments advanced on the part of the Department as well as the assessee and after considering the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Sarb Consulate Marine Products P. Ltd.: 294 ITR 444, concluded that the revocation order did not amount to execution of a search as no asset was seized under that order and what happened was only the revocation of the prohibitory order passed earlier. The Tribunal found that in this situation, it could not be said that there was an execution of a search on 23.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14 days. In the present case the gap between the search on 31.10.2000 and the purported last search on 23.12.2000 is approximately 53 days. There is no explanation whatsoever with regard to this period between the two intervening dates. In fact, the revocation order does give an indication that the prohibitory order was passed merely for continuing the search possibly for the purposes of extending the limitation. The Tribunal has come to a conclusion of fact that the second purported search on 23.12.2000 was not a search at all and all that was required to be searched and seized had been concluded on 31.10.2000 itself. In fact, there is no explanation forthcoming from the revenue as to what transpired from 31.10.2000 to 23.12.2000 so as to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
