TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... illegal being barred by the period of limitation. Therefore, the impugned orders of the lower authorities are cancelled. Since the assessee succeeded on the limitation issue, the Ld. JM did not deal with the grounds of the assessee on merits of the additions sustained by the CIT(A). Order Ld. A.M. - The search u/s 132(1) in the case of the assessee was concluded only on 8-9-1997 when the prohibitory order u/s 132(3) of the Act was lifted by the authorized officer concerned. Hence, it cannot be said that the impugned block assessment order has been made by the AO beyond the period of limitation prescribed u/s 158BE of the Act. Third Member Order:- As per section 158BE(1), assessment u/s 158BC should be completed within one year from the end of the month in which last of the authorization for search u/s 132 was executed. In the case under consideration before me, search operation in pursuance to the warrant of authorization issued u/s 132 was carried out at the residential premises of the assessee on 28-7-1997 and it continued till 29-7-1997. Only one authorization for search was issued. However, prohibitory order u/s 132(3) was issued in respect of jewellery, and sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entioned is 'search is finally concluded', is held to be a panchnama prepared on the conclusion of search within the meaning of Explanation to section 158BE, it would amount to an extending the period of limitation for completion of assessment on account of restraint order u/s 132(3). It would be contrary to the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mrs. Sandhya P. Naik. Respectfully following the decision in the case of Mrs. Sandhya P. Naik hold that the order passed u/s 158BC by the AO is time-barred within the meaning of section 158BE of the Act. The Third Member vide order dated 16-6-2008 agreed with the view of the Judicial Member by expressing his opinion that the assessment made by the Assessing Officer was barred by the period of limitation prescribed under section 158BE of the Act. In view of the majority opinion, it is held that the block assessment confirmed by the AO was bad in law inasmuch as it was passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed u/s 158BE of the Act. Consequently, the orders of both the lower authorities are hereby quashed. Since the assessee succeeds on the preliminary ground, it is not necessary for u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Rs. 16,34,970. The assessee remained unsuccessful in appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Hence, this present appeal is preferred before the Tribunal. 3. Learned counsel for the assessee, Mr. K. Shivram, drew our attention to the provisions of section 158BE of the Act to contend that block assessment order could be passed within the period of two years from the end of the month in which the last of the authorizations for search under section 132 was executed. According to him, the assessment could be completed latest by July 31, 1999. Since the impugned assessment was passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under section 158BE the same is barred by period of limitation and, therefore, illegal. Proceeding further, it was submitted that everything which was found in the course of search was duly inventoried and even the valuation had also been done in respect of the jewellery as is apparent from the prohibitory order under section 132(3) of the Act. Therefore, in his view, the search had been completed at 2.30 a.m. on July 29, 1997, itself as nothing remained to be searched. It was further submitted that on later dates, the prohibitory ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for search under section 132 or for requisition under section 132A, as the case may be, was executed in cases where a search is initiated or books of account or other documents or any assets are requisitioned on or after the 1st day of January, 1997. Explanation 2. For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the authorisation referred to in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to have been executed, (a) in the case of search, on the conclusion of search as recorded in the last panchnama drawn in relation to any person in whose case the warrant of authorisation has been issued; (b) in the case of requisition under section 132A, on the actual receipt of the books of account or other documents or assets by the authorised officer. 6. The perusal of the above provisions clearly shows that (i) there can be more than one authorization issued under section 132(1) or 132(1A) of the Act and the period of limitation for making assessment shall commence from the end of the month in which last of the authorizations was executed and (ii) the authorizations shall be deemed to have been executed on the conclusion of the search as recorded in the last panchnama. The deeming provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r to safeguard the interest of the person whose premises have been searched and to curb the misuse of the powers of search party. That means, in our opinion, the requirement of the presence of witnesses is a sine qua non for conducting a valid search in respect of which panchnama is to be prepared. Further, the object behind this requirement is that, anything found and seized is truly recorded in the panchnama. If nothing is found, then such fact must be mentioned in the panchnama. On the other hand, if something is found, then it must be duly inventoried in the presence of witnesses. Further, if any seizure is required to be made, then the same should also be made in their presence. Once it is done, the same should be truly recorded in such panchnama. Search can be said to be concluded if all these transactions are complied with. 8. The peculiar situation arising before us is the situation where a valid panchnama, as described in the preceding paragraph was made on July 29, 1997, but a prohibitory order was also passed under section 132(3) of the Act by the search party in respect of certain items, i.e., jewellery and shares, and a fresh panchnama was prepared on the date when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n factum of conclusion of search is to be recorded as is apparent from the provisions of Explanation 2 to section 158BE. Therefore, in our opinion, where no search is carried out but a panchnama is prepared, then such panchnama cannot be treated as a panchnama for the purpose of section 158BE read with Explanation 2 of the Act. 10. Having held as above, the next question for consideration is whether search can be said to continued till the date when order under section 132(3) was revoked. If the answer is yes, then, the panchnama dated September 8, 1997, would be a valid panchnama and period of limitation would commence from that date, if the answer is in negative, then search would be deemed to be concluded on July 29, 1997, when the first panchnama was prepared and period of limitation would commence from that date. We have gone through the provisions of the second proviso to section 132(1) as well section 132(3) which provide the circumstances under which prohibitory order can be issued. For the benefit of this order, the same are being reproduced as under : Section 132. (1) . . . Provided further that where it is not possible or practicable to take physical possessio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d jewellery were inventoried by the search party and even the valuation of jewellery was also done on the date of search itself. So, nothing more was required to be done in respect of these items for which orders under section 132(3) were issued. The learned senior Departmental representative has not been able to point out any action of search or seizure during the period commencing from July 29, 1997, till the dates of revocation of orders under section 132(3). The only submission of the learned senior Departmental representative was that certain statements were recorded during this period which, in our opinion, cannot be considered as an act of search. As already described, search means finding of hidden or concealed things. Once things are found and inventoried, the process of search comes to an end. It is only the process of seizure which takes place after the process of search. Therefore, in our humble opinion, search was completed on July 29, 1997, when inventory of things found was prepared and nothing, remained to be done. Hence, panchnama dated September 8, 1997, cannot be said to be a valid panchnama. Merely because a panchnama was prepared, it cannot be construed as panc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er section 132(8A). As per the proviso to section 132(8A), the period of validity of order under section 132(3) gets extended even beyond completion of assessment proceedings. Hence, even if search is not concluded, and time-limit has not commenced, assessment can be made which will in other words imply that there will not be any outer time-limit even though prescribed under section 158BE. In our opinion, the interpretation of section 132(3) and 132(8A) as made is not correct. What the Explanation to section 158BE(2) says is that the time-limit will start from the last of the panchnama and it cannot be interpreted to mean that the time-limit will not commence till order under section 132(3) is in operation. An order under section 132(3) can be passed restraining a person in possession of books or valuables to deal with the same. However, once all the materials and valuables are appraised the search will come to an end and to this effect a panchnama will be prepared. Even at the time of conclusion of search an order under section 132(3) can be passed which in certain circumstances as per section 132(8A) may operate even after completion of the assessment. This does not mean that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Member Shri K. C. Singhal and with utmost respect I regret my inability to agree with his findings. In my humble opinion the search under section 132(1) in the case before us was concluded only on September 8, 1997, when the prohibitory order under section 132(3) of the Act was lifted by the authorised officer concerned. Hence it cannot be said that the impugned block assessment order has been made by the Assessing Officer beyond the period of limitation prescribed under section 158BE. 19. Under the provisions of section 158BE the time-limit to make an order under section 158BC is to be reckoned with from the end of the month in which the last of the authorisations for the search under section 132 or for requisition under section 132A was executed. Explanation 2 to section 158BE declares that the authorisation referred to in sub-section (1) of section 158BE shall be deemed to have been executed, (a) in the case of search, on the conclusion of search as recorded in the last panchnama drawn in relation to any person in whose case the warrant of authorisation has been issued ; (b) in the case of requisition under section 132A, on the actual receipt of the books of account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers under section 132(3) were issued. The learned senior Departmental representative has not been able to point out any action of search or seizure during the period commencing from July 29, 1997, till the dates of revocation of orders under section 132(3). The only submission of learned senior Departmental representative was that certain statements were recorded during this period which, in our opinion, cannot be considered as an act of search. As already described, search means finding of hidden or concealed things. Once things are found and inventoried, the process of search comes to an end. It is only the process of seizure which takes place after the process of search. Therefore, in our humble opinion, search was completed on July 29, 1997, when inventory of things found was prepared and nothing remained to be done. Hence, panchnama dated September 8, 1997, cannot be said to be a valid panchnama. Merely because a panchnama was prepared, it cannot be construed as panchnama. Even this panchnama does not refer to any act of search. It simply says that search was concluded. Thus, the panchnama dated September 8, 1997, cannot be considered to be a valid panchnama and, therefore, ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation under section 158BE read with Explanation 2 my learned brother has separated search from seizure and set them apart. The provisions of section 132(1) authorise the authorising officer to (i) enter and search any building, place, vessel, vehicle or aircraft where he has reason to suspect that such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing are kept ; (ii) break open the lock of any door, box, locker, safe, almirah or other receptacle for exercising the powers conferred by clause (i) where the keys thereof are not available ; (iia) search any person who has got out of, or is about to get into, or is in, the building, place, vessel, vehicle or aircraft, if the authorised officer has reason to suspect that such person has secreted about his person any such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing ; (iib) require any person who is found to be in possession or control of any books of account or other documents maintained in the form of electronic record as defined in clause (t) of sub-section (1) of sec tion 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of First ITO v. Narayan Champalal Bajaj [1993] 201 ITR 315 (Bom). The facts of that case briefly are that a search under section 132 was carried out on October 29, 1985, at the premises of one Shri Narayan Bajaj. The search continued till 9.30 p.m. and remained incomplete. During the course of search the authorised officer separated the pawned jewellery and kept it in the almirah and then issued a prohibitory order under section 132(3) in respect thereof. The almirah was opened next day and it was found that some article was missing. On verification the search party noticed that the steel plates on the rear side of the almirah had been cut into two pieces. The local Income-tax Officer therefore lodged a report with the police station. After completion of the investigation Shri Narayan Bajaj was prosecuted. In the course of defence one of the pleas taken was that the provisions of section 132(3) had been wrongly resorted to. It was contended that the authorised officer had not reached a conclusion or formulated the opinion that the pawned articles kept in the almirah were property undisclosed for the purposes of the Income-tax Act. Merely because it was 9.30 p.m. it could no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e an order on the owner. . . .' In view of the legal provision, it is explicit that the contingency contemplated by sub-section (3) of section 132 of the Act could be other than those provided in the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 132 of the Act. Such contingency in the given case could be impracticability due to physical or mental incapability of the concerned officer owing to over strain. In view of our discussion, we hold that the reasons as contemplated under sub-section (3) of section 132 of the Act pertain to impracticability rather than impossibility. PW-2, Krishnamachari and PW-3, Prasad, have specifically stated that it was not feasible for them to complete the search even after continuing it for the whole night. As the completion of the search was not feasible, it had certainly created an impediment in the way of the officer formulating the opinion and effecting seizure of the objection able materials ; as such, in view of our finding that it being a continuous and homogeneous process, incompletion of the search has certainly affected the ultimate act of effecting seizure of the property undisclosed for the purpose of the Income-tax Act. In the situation, PW ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proper conduct on their part during the course of performance of their duties and it is for the party who alleges otherwise to rebut the presumption with sufficient evidence and material. This position has been clearly recognised by the hon ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO, Special Investigation Circle-B v. Seth Bros. [1969] 74 ITR 836 in the following words (headnote of 74 ITR) : If the action is maliciously taken or power under the section is exercised for a collateral purpose, it is liable to be struck down by the court. If the conditions for exercise of the power are not satisfied the proceeding is liable to be quashed. But where power is exercised bona fide, and in furtherance of the statutory duties of the tax officers any error of judgment on the part of the officers will not vitiate the exercise of the power. Where the Commissioner entertains the requisite belief and for reasons recorded by him authorises a designated officer to enter and search premises for books of account and documents relevant to or useful for any proceeding under the Act, the court in a petition by an aggrieved person cannot be asked to substitute its own opinion whether an order authorising s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ween the facts of the case of Mrs. Sandhya P. Naik [2002] 253 ITR 534 and that of the assessee. We find the facts of the case of Mrs. Sandhya P. Naik [2002] 253 ITR 534 to be very different and distinguishable. In that case the articles put under restraint were silver articles. After the restraint order under section 132(3) on October 20, 1996, the cupboard was once again opened on October 26, 1996, and 6 kg. of silver vessels were released and fresh order was passed under section 132(3). On December 13, 1996 the Asst. Commissioner who was not one of the authorized officers mentioned in the search warrant removed the seal and made an order releasing the silver vessels and articles. The hon ble High Court found that there were several defects. On the facts of that case it was found that there was no practical impediment to seizure of 45 kg. of silver articles. The case of the Department that the quantity was huge was found to be not acceptable. The court also found that the restraint order could not be cancelled and renewed from time to time as was done in that case. There were many other defects in the panchnama as it was not signed by the assessee and no witnesses were called t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd it would be unfair to put this burden on the Department long after the conclusion of the search. We are in respectful agreement with the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of C. Ramaiah Reddy [2004] 268 ITR (AT) 49 (Bang) that the wisdom of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal cannot replace the wisdom of the Assessing Officer passing an order under section 132(3) on the spur of the moment. There has to be good amount of reasons to call in question the validity of such action. We also see considerable force in the contention of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Departmental representative) that the assessee not having objected to an order under section 132(3) during the course of the search or during the course of the proceedings under section 158BC and after having allowed the time-limit under section 158BE to be reckoned from the last panchnama drawn in the case of the assessee should be hard put to establish the illegality in the orders of income-tax authorities. After consideration of the matter we reject the additional grounds of the assessee that the order under section 158BC is bad in law on account of having been made beyond the expiry of the statutory time-lim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remises for books of account and documents relevant to or useful for any proceeding under the Act, the court in a petition by an aggrieved person cannot be asked to substitute its own opinion whether an order authorising search should have been issued. (emphasis supplied) 28. On consideration of the matter I am of the view that if in a given case a prohibitory order under section 132(3) is issued that would ordinarily denote continuation of the execution of an authorisation under section 132(1) of the Act and any panchnama(s) drawn in relation to such prohibitory order under section 132(3) would for the purpose of the provisions of section 158BE read with Explanation 2 have the effect of extending the time-limit for completion of the order under section 158BC. It is only in the extreme cases of abuse of power or abdication of sense of duty or responsibility as in the case of Mrs. Sandhya P. Naik [2002] 253 ITR 534 that the proceedings taken by the officers after issue of prohibitory orders under section 132(3) may be treated to be a nullity. In the case before us there is no reason to believe that the authorised officer first issued a prohibitory order under section 132(3) a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation under warrant of authorization issued under section 132 was carried out at the residential premises of the assessee at 7.30 p.m. on July 28, 1997, and continued till 2.30 a.m. on July 29, 1997. During the said search, certain incriminating materials which, inter alia, included jewellery and shares, were found and the search party prepared an inventory in respect of such materials found during the course of search and a panchnama was also drawn in respect of the said materials in the course of search. As per paragraph 5 of panchnama, only books of account and documents, as per annexure-A, were seized and no seizure was effected in respect of other materials found during course of search including jewellery and shares. In paragraph 8 of the panchnama, it was stated that search was temporarily concluded for the day to be commenced subsequently. However, a prohibitory order was issued under section 132(3) in respect of jewellery and shares found from the cupboard kept in the bedroom of the assessee' s son Sri Bakul N. Gandhi, 11/12, Sandeep Building, Laxminarayan Lane, Matunga. The prohibitory order issued under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the presence of witnesses. Though the proceedings of search as well as seizure are to be recorded in the panchnama, yet for the purpose of reckoning the period of limitation under section 158BE, it is the panchnama wherein factum of conclusion of search is to be recorded as is apparent from the provisions of Explanation 2 to section 158BE. Therefore, where no search is carried out but a panchnama is prepared, then such panchnama cannot be treated as a panchnama for the purpose of section 158BE read with Explanation 2 thereof. (ii) The learned senior Departmental representative has not been able to point out any action of search or seizure during the period commencing from July 29, 1997, till the dates of revocation of orders under section 132(3), except saying that certain statements were recorded during this period. This cannot be considered as an act of search. Search means finding of hidden or concealed things. Once things are found and inventoried, the process of search comes to an end. It is only the process of seizure which takes place after the process of search. Therefore, search was completed on July 29, 1997, when inventory of things found was prepared and nothing rem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 158BE. (v) The learned Judicial Member on the above reasoning/findings cancelled the orders of the lower authorities with the following observation : 12. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the panchnama dated September 8, 1997, was not a valid panchnama in the eye of law and, therefore, has to be ignored and consequently, period of limitation will commence from July 31, 1997, since the valid panchnama was prepared on July 29, 1997. Consequently, the block assessment could be completed by July 31, 1999. Since the impugned block assessment order was passed on September 30, 1999, it was clearly beyond the period of limitation prescribed under section 158BE. Thus the impugned order of the Assessing Officer was illegal being barred by the period of limitation. Therefore, the impugned orders of the lower authorities are cancelled. (vi) Since the assessee succeeded on the limitation issue, the learned Judicial Member did not deal with the grounds of the assessee on merits of the additions sustained by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 35. The learned Accountant Member passed a dissenting order holding that the search under section 132(1) in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch books of account or documents, another authorization to cause seizure and yet another authorization to place marks of identification or to make a note of preparation of an inventory, etc. The authorizing officer under section 132(1) issues a single authorization to the authorized officer to carry out all the abovementioned activities jointly or severally. (iii) Referring to the decision of the hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Narayan Champalal Bajaj [1993] 201 ITR 315, the learned Accountant Member observed that the hon ble Bombay High Court in the said case have clearly held that search, enquiry and formulating opinion and seizure of valuable articles or things is a single, continuous and homogeneous process. He, therefore, held that merely because the final decision was not to seize the shares in question, it cannot be said that the proceedings undertaken after prohibitory orders under section 132(3) were a nullity and the last panchnama drawn was in the eye of law no panchnama at all. (iv) The learned Accountant Member also did not subscribe to the view taken by the learned Judicial Member that unless the Department established with sufficient evidence/material ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of duty or responsibility as in the case of Mrs. Sandhya P. Naik [2002] 253 ITR 534 (Bom) that the proceedings taken by the officers after issue of prohibitory orders under section 132(3) may be treated to be a nullity. In the case before us there is no reason to believe that the authorized officer first issued a prohibitory order under section 132(3) and thereafter lifted the same in abuse of the power in this behalf conferred upon them under the provisions of section 132 of the Act. On the contrary the sequence of events shows that the authorized officers took recourse to the pro visions of section 132(3) so as to make enquiries and verification in the interregnum with a view to avoid in discriminate or uncalled for seizure of the properties belonging to the assessee. 36. At the time of hearing before me, learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the arguments made before the Tribunal and relied on the order of the learned Judicial Member. He also submitted as under in support of his contention that the order passed under section 158BC is bad in law and void ab initio : (a) That the search action was conducted on July 28, 1997, and concluded at 2.30 a.m. on July 29, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be the intention of the Legislature while introducing the new scheme of assessment of search cases to curb the time limit in deriving the finality of search cases. Keeping in view the objective of the Legislature for introducing this new scheme, the search action could not be said to be continuing under the guise of panchnama only for the purpose of recording statement of the assessee and prolonging the search action without any reason. He further submitted that restraint order does not amount to seizure and if there is no seizure, panchnama cannot be drawn. He placed reliance on the following decisions : CIT v. Mrs. Sandhya P. Naik [2002] 253 ITR 534 (Bom) Dr. C. Balakrishnan Nair v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 70 (Ker). (h) That when all the formalities of taking of inventory etc. are completed, if the prohibitory order is issued on the cupboard to keep the valuables, time-limit cannot be extended. He placed reliance on various decisions of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which included the following : Deputy CIT v. Adolf Patric Pinto [2006] 284 ITR (AT) 207 (Mumbai) Sarb Consulate Marine Products P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2007] 290 ITR (AT) 128 (Delhi) Shahrukh Khan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e summoned person and issuing order under this section shall not be deemed to be seizure of such books of account, documents, money, jewellery etc., as contained in section 132(1)(iii). He thus submitted that issuing order under section 132(3) is an administrative action on the part of the authorized officer and this cannot be legally questioned. He placed reliance on the following decisions : Promain Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2006] 281 ITR (AT) 107 (Delhi) C. Ramaiah Reddy v. Asst. CIT [2004] 268 ITR (AT) 49 (Bang) [SB] M. B. Lal v. CIT [2005] 279 ITR 298 (Delhi) VLS Finance Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 289 ITR 286 (Delhi) CIT v. Dr. C. Balakrishnan Nair [2006] 282 ITR 158 (Ker). 38. The learned Departmental representative further submitted that the case law relied upon by learned counsel in the case of CIT v. Mrs. Sandhya P. Naik [2002] 253 ITR 534 (Bom) is distinguishable on facts and hence not applicable to the present case. 39. In counter reply, learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the facts of cases relied upon by the learned Departmental representative are different. The learned Judicial Member has correctly noted the facts of the case and arrived at righ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n respect of jewellery was revoked on August 1, 1997, while prohibitory order in respect of share certificates was revoked on September 8, 1997. On September 8, 1997, another panchnama was prepared wherein it was stated that search is finally concluded. Now the question is whether for the purpose of section 158BE, the warrant of authorization was executed on July 29, 1997, when the search was originally concluded though simultaneously prohibitory order under section 132(3) was issued in respect of jewellery and shares, or on September 8, 1997, when the prohibitory order issued under section 132(3) was withdrawn and a panchnama was prepared stating that the search was finally concluded. 43. We find that the hon ble jurisdictional High Court has considered the similar issue in the case of CIT v. Mrs. Sandhya P. Naik [2002] 253 ITR 534 (Bom). At page 541, their Lordships have considered the effect of issuance of prohibitory order under section 132(3) and held as under : Action under section 132(3) of the Income-tax Act can be resorted to only if there is any practical difficulty in seizing the item which is liable to be seized. When there is no such practical difficulty the of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... letely searched and all the assets found were inventoried and a panchnama was prepared. Thereafter no action for further search had taken place and after the verification of the assessee' s explanation with regard to jewellery and shares, the prohibitory order in respect of jewellery was revoked on August 1, 1997, and in respect of share certificates on September 8, 1997. Thus, on September 8, 1997, only the prohibitory order in respect of shares was revoked. Therefore, the panchnama prepared on September 8, 1997, cannot be said to be a panchnama prepared in pursuance of the warrant of authorization for search within the meaning of section 158BE(1) of the Act. If a panchnama prepared on the revocation of prohibitory order under section 132(3) wherein the only thing mentioned is search is finally concluded , is held to be a panchnama prepared on the conclusion of search within the meaning of the Explanation to section 158BE, it would amount to extending the period of limitation for completion of assessment on account of the restraint order under section 132(3). It would be contrary to the decision of the hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mrs. Sandhya P. Naik [20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
