9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (5) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1719 of Hongkong Bank and No. 1415 of Grindlays Bank were also seized and Panchanama was drawn on 19-12-1996. It was mentioned in the panchanama that the search has been temporarily concluded. 3. Two warrants of authorization were issued on 23-12-1996 with regard to each of the said lockers for which the keys were seized on 19-12-1996. Locker No. 1719 of Hongkong Bank was searched on 23-12-1996 which was found to be empty and Panchanama was drawn on that date which mention that the search was finally concluded. The copy of the said Panchanama is at pages 3 and 4 of the Revenue's paper book. Locker No. 1415 of Grindlays Bank was also searched on 23-12-1996 where jewellery worth Rs. 6.99 lakhs was found inventory was prepared and Valuation was done. Panchanama was drawn on 23-12-1996 and the same is placed in the paper book of the DR at pages 5 and 6. It was mentioned in the said Panchanama that the search is finally concluded. 4. The jewellery found at Locker No. 1415 was brought to said residence on 23-12-1996 and was placed in an Alimirah in the bedroom and P.O. was clamped which is at page 99 of the assessee's paper book. A Panchanama was prepared to the said effect on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irst argument raised by ld. Counsel is that the clamping of P.O. on 23-12-1996 was not valid as such the search was concluded on that day itself. The jewellery in one of the lockers was worth Rs. 6.99 lakhs and the total jewellery kept under PO, including the jewellery found at Residence was Rs. 8.67 lakhs. There was no justification for imposing PO for such small amount of jewellery keeping in view the status of the family and CBDT's instructions with regard to seizure of jewellery during search. For this proposition he relied on the decision of CIT v. Mrs. Sandhya P. Naik [2002] 253 ITR 534 (Bom.). He further stated that decision of Special Bench in the case of C. Ramaiah Reddy v. Asstt. CIT [2003] 87 ITD 439 (Bang.) is not binding on the Tribunal sitting at Mumbai. The Mumbai Benches had to follow the decision of Mrs. Sandhya P. Naik's case as the same being of the jurisdictional High Court. He further stated that the matter had gone in appeal before Honble Bombay High Court in the case of Mrs. Sandhya P. Naik and the matter was adjudicated in favour of the assessee. He stated that if the matter can be decided in appeal by the Bombay High Court then the Tribunal should a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the time limitation for the purpose of section 158BE(1) would start from 23-12-1996. 10. The learned CIT DR Girish Dave vehemently opposed the arguments of the ld. Counsel for the assessee and stated that the action of imposing P.O. under section 132(3) is an administrative action. It is the discretion of the Authorized Officer whether to seize any valuable or to impose the PO under section 132(3) which is an administrative action. Such administrative action of the Assessing Officer cannot be subject-matter of appeal before the Tribunal and it is beyond the purview of the Tribunal to adjudicate on the validity of such PO. He relied on the decision of SB in the case of C. Ramaiah Reddy, and also on the recent decision of Delhi High Court in the case of M.B. Lal v. CIT [2005] 279 ITR 298. He stated that the decision of Spl. Bench is binding on the Tribunal. He further stated even if it is presumed that the action of the authorized office in passing the order under section 132(3) was wrong, even then it cannot limit the powers of the Assessing Officer who is completing the block assessment. According to him the powers of the authorized officer conducting the search and powers of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... executed. He stated that the term "execute" means when the job assigned is accomplished or completed. For this proposition he relied on the law Lexicon and on the case of Jaya S. Shetty v. Asstt. CIT [1999] 69 ITD 336 (Mum.). He further stated that actions carried on by authorized officer under section 132(1) is single, continuous and homogenous process with various stages and for this proposition he relied on the decision of State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Champalal Bajaj [1993] 201 ITR 315 (Bom.). 13. Shri Girish Dave drew our attention to the three authorisation warrants issued in this case. The authorisation warrants dated 17-12-1996 in respect of residence of the assessee was used on 18-12-1996, 23-12-1996 and 30-1-1997, whereas the authorisation warrants dated 23-12-1996 in respect of two bank lockers and were used only on 23-12-1996. He stated that this very fact makes it clear that authorisation warrant dated 17-12-1996 was last executed on 30-1-1997. Hence, limitation would start from 30-1-1997. Shri Dave stated as per section 158BE(1), the limitation shall start from the end of the month in which last of the authorisations was executed. He stated that what is required t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons of the CBDT that jewellery up to 500 grams in respect of each lady should not be seized and similarly some small concession has also been given for each male member of the house. Shri Hiro Rai also stated that the last of the authorisations was dated 12-3-1996 in respect of the locker and same was executed on that day itself. It is clear from the Panchanama 23-12-1996 prepared after the search of locker which states that the search was concluded. 17. We have given anxious consideration to the arguments given by both the parties and have also gone through the documents placed in the paper books. In the beginning we shall deal with the last argument raised by the Counsel for the assessee to support his claim that the assessment made is barred by time limitation. Admittedly three authorisation warrants were issued. The 1st authorisation warrant in respect of resident-cum-office was issued on 17-12-1996 and subsequently two authorisation warrants in respect of two lockers, whose keys were found at the residence of the assessee, were issued on 23-12-1996. The search was conducted at the residence of the assessee on 18-12-1996 and continued till 19-12-1996 and was temporarily conclu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion is with regard to authorization referred to sub-section (1) which refers to last of the authorizations. Which means that the last of the panchanama has to be taken into account in respect of last of the authorisations for search, as there could be more than one panchanamas in respect of same authorization. The crux of the matter remains that the limitation shall start from the end of the month in which last of the authorisation is executed. 19. In the case of the assessee three authorizations were issued, one on 17-12-1996 and two on 23-12-1996. As such there cannot be any doubt that the last authorization in relation to assessee was issued on 23-12-1996. The authorizations dated 23-12-1997 were in respect of two lockers of the assessee whose keys were found during the search at the residence of the assessee. One locker was found to be empty and in the second locker some jewellery was found which was inventorised and got valued from the approved valuer and it was brought to the residence of the assessee. It was mentioned in the panchanama drawn at both the lockers on 23-12-1997 that the search was finally concluded. The jewellery was brought home and P.O. was clamped and then ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
