TMI Blog2005 (5) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri K.V. Narsimhacharya on 13th Nov., 1998 can be said to be execution of the same authorization shown to the assessee on 17th Sept., 1998 and as per the Panchnama it is dt. 16th Sept., 1998. The second Panchnama dt. 13th Nov., 1998 also does not mention about any fresh authorisation. The reliance placed by the Revenue on the decision of the Special Bench in the case of C. Ramaiah Reddy, cited supra, will be of no help before them. As the issue before the said Special Bench was, whether search is deemed to be continuing so long as all materials and valuables are either seized or released but P.O. is passed and time-limit will not commence so long as Panchnama declaring conclusion of search is not drawn. Here, the issue is that the officer w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The brief facts as stated, are that the assessee is a partner in M/s Al. Samit International and is also having other sources of income. His main source of income is from M/s Al. Samit International, which is engaged in the business of recruitment for foreign companies located in the middle east. 4. A search under s. 132(1) was initiated in the case of the firm M/s Al. Samit International as well as on its partners on 17th Sept., 1998. The search was initiated in the case of the assessee on 17th. Sept., 1998, at 8 a.m. and was concluded on 18th Sept., 1998, at 3 p.m. and Panchnama dt. 18th Sept., 1998, was drawn. A Prohibitory Order (in short P.O.) dt. 18th Sept., 1998, was passed with regard to jewellery kept in the wall unit of the bedro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the articles placed under P.O. were neither seized nor need to be seized on that date and as such the search was temporarily concluded on 18th Sept., 1998 He also held that since the assessee had voluntarily filed the return for the block period at Rs. 8,00,000, the AO was not required to prove as to what is the source of the same. 7. Before us it is argued by the learned counsel for the assessee Shri Firoze Andhyanutina that on 17th Sept., 1998, the authorised officers were S/Shri V.K. Joy and S.S. Kamble as it is clear from the first Panchnama. They concluded the search on 18th Sept., 1998 and also placed a P.O. on jewellery and CPU. He further stated that on 13th Nov., 1998, another officer Shri K.V. Narsimhacharya merely lifted the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .S. Kamble, who searched the premises on 17th Sept., 1998 and concluded the search on 18th Sept., 1998 and prepared the Panchnama on 18th Sept., 1998. They also inventorised the jewellery and kept the same along with CPU under prohibitory orders vide order dt. 18th Sept., 1998. The Revenue has not shown any authorisation issued in favour of Shri K.V. Narsimhacharya who visited the premises on 13th Nov., 1998 and lifted the P.O. dt. 18th Sept., 1998. As per the provisions of s. 158BE the time-limitation starts from the end of the month in which the last of the authorisation for search was executed. The fact is not denied by the Revenue that only one authorisation was issued. In our opinion the authorisation issued was executed on 18th Sept., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
