9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and prejudicial to the interest of revenue ["impugned notice"]. Petitioner is aggrieved with the invocation of revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of IT Act, and seeks quashing of the impugned notice, asserting that the assessment order proposed to be revised, is barred by limitation, rendering the consequent proceedings untenable. This Court is therefore, called upon to adjudicate this jurisdictional issue. THE FACTS AND CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES The Petitioner's case 2. The background facts and arguments presented by Mr. Giriraj Subramanium, counsel for Petitioner, are as follows: 2.1. The Petitioner is an entrepreneur, engaged in the business of apparel design and consultancy. On 02nd March, 2021, the Income Tax Department carried out searches of various premises belonging to Petitioner's family, pursuant to a warrant dated 01st March, 2021. This search was extended to include the following lockers, held in the name of Petitioner and her family members: (i) Locker No. 299, Syndicate Bank (now Canara Bank), Vasant Vihar, New Delhi ["Locker 299"]. (ii) Locker No. G-2070, U&I Vaults Limited, F-41, South Extension, Part- 1, Ring Road, New Delhi ["Locker 2070"]. (i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent, notice, or other proceedings issued under the IT Act shall not be deemed invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect, or omission, provided it conforms to the intent and purpose of the Act. 2.9. Panchnamas in respect of Petitioner's premises/ lockers were issued on two separate dates - first, in respect of search conducted between 02nd and 06th March, 2021, and second, on 29th and 30th April, 2021. However, as the lockers searched in April, 2021 were already inspected by the ITO in March, 2021 (during the first search), the panchnamas dated 29th and 30th April, 2021 cannot be considered as the "last panchnama" for the purpose of limitation under Section 153B. 2.10. The searches carried out on 29th and 30th April, 2021 are invalid as the conclusion of search of Locker 299 was delayed by 58 days. Similarly, there was an unexplained delay of 59 days in respect of Lockers 2070 and Locker 1320. In this regard, reliance is placed upon Commissioner of Income Tax v. Katyal (2009) 221 CTR 310., and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sarb Consulate Marine Products (P) Ltd. (2007) 211 CTR 54. 2.11. As per panchnamas dated 29th April, 2021 and 30th April, 2021 framed in respect of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usion of search as recorded in the last panchnama drawn in relation to any person in whose case the warrant of authorisation has been issued [...]" 5. Since the first authorisation for search under Section 132 of IT Act was executed during the financial year 2020-21 (in March, 2021), the time period for completion of assessment under Section 153A would be twelve months from the end of the financial year in which the last authorisation for search under Section 132 was executed. An authorisation is deemed to be executed on the conclusion of search as recorded in the "last panchnama" drawn in relation to a person, in whose case the warrant of authorisation has been issued. In the case at hand, the date of authorisation has not been contested by Petitioner; the controversy however, revolves around the date of conclusion of search, recorded in the "last panchnama". 6. The Petitioner argues that search of her premises/ lockers was conducted in two phases: during 02nd to 06th March, 2021, and 29th to 30th April, 2021. However, the second search was a prolongation of the first one, premised on the warrant of authorisation issued in March, 2021. Therefore, Petitioner contends that this ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s per Annexure attached with warrant dated 05.04.2021 and in exercise of the authority conferred on me by section 132(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. I hereby order you not to remove part with or otherwise deal with the articles mentioned below without my previous permission: DETAIL OF ARTICLES 1. Locker No. 299 under the name of Smt. Anuradha Bakshi in Syndicate Bank (Now Canara Bank), Vasant Vihar, New Delhi The order is served on you so that you may ensure that the seal pressed by me on the said locker is kept intact. Please note that if the seal is not intact at the time of opening the said locker, all the consequences as laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as under section 275AA of the income Tax Act, 1961 would follow." 8. Petitioner has sought to mislead the Court, arguing that status of "last panchnama" remains unchanged despite the subsequent searches on 29th and 30th April, 2021 of Lockers 299, 2070, and 1320. While, there is strength in Petitioner's argument that panchnamas logging nil recovery from the scrutiny of Lockers 2070 and 1320 on 30th April, 2021, which were also searched previously in March, 2021, cannot be classified as "last panchnama" ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
