TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent/cross objector. JUDGMENT 1. The Revenue has preferred this appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act"), against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Chandigarh "B" Bench), dated October 7, 2003, passed in IT(SS) No. 1118/ Chandi/96 for the assessment years 1986-87 to 1996-97. 2. On September 26, 1995, the search and seizure action under section 132(1) of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee and the assessment under section 158BC was completed. The assessee preferred an appeal and also raised additional grounds against the validity of search. The Tribunal held that the search and seizure was illegal as no material was produced before the Tribunal to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court in Gaya Prasad Pathak v. Asst. CIT [2007] 290 ITR 128. 7. Learned counsel for the assessee relies upon the contra judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Smt. Chitra Devi Soni [2008] 1 DTR 98; [2009] 313 ITR 174 and also a judgment of this High Court in CIT v. Raj Kumar Gupta (I. T. A. No. 50 of 2002 passed on August 21, 2003). 8. We have given due consideration to the issue involved. 9. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in Virinder Bhatia v. Deputy CIT [2001] 79 ITD 340 and the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Gaya Prasad Pathak v. Asst. CIT [2007] 290 ITR 128. For the same reason, we respectfully disagree with the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment proceeding or an appeal arising therefrom. It can only partake of the nature and character of adjudicatory fact to the limited extent whether such search and seizure had taken place and what has been found during the search and seizure. The validity of search and seizure, in our considered opinion, is neither jurisdictional fact nor adjudicatory fact and, therefore, the same cannot be dwelled upon or delved into in an appeal. The submission of Mr. Nema that the Tribunal having been constituted under article 323 of the Constitution can delve into, we are disposed to think, is an unacceptable proposition of law especially in the teeth of the provision contained under section 253 of the Act." 12. We are of the view that the Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
