INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 158BC read with Section 158BE(1)(b)

Search and seizure - Block assessment under section 158BC - Timebarred assessment in terms of section 158BE -

Assessee, who was a medical practitioner, died during pendency of writ petition. He was represented by legal representative. Premises of assessee were searched for block period from 1-4-1990 to 31-3-2000 and 1-4-2000 to 24-1-2001. According to assessee, search was concluded on 25-1-2001, however, on that day, under section 132(3), a prohibitory order was issued by revenue. Assessee filed return subsequent to said search operations and seizure made under section 132, in reply to notice issued under section 158BC. Assessee contented that block assessment order itself was barred by limitation under provision, i.e., 158BE(1)(b). Assessee also contended that there was no notice under section 143(2) issued and even if it was issued, that was also barred by limitation. Assessee further contended that there was no prior approval of Joint Commissioner, which ought to be obtained under section 158BG. Held: Allegation that a notice under section 143(2) was not issued and that a notice under section 142(1) only was issued is not correct since the notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued on the same date (6-6-2003) and also served on the same date (10.6.2003). The allegation that adequate opportunity was not given to the petitioner before the completion of the block assessment is factually incorrect since the case was discussed with the petitioner and his representatives on as much as six occasions. Further, as regards on issue of limitation, it was held that search operation commenced at second premises of assessee on 25-1-2001, continued till 12-6-2001, therefore each time separate panchanamas were drawn and prohibitory orders were issued with endorsement that, 'search continues'. Therefore independently, on basis of section 132(1)(iib), revenue's continuous search operation taken place on various dates could very well be construed as an authorised search operation. Therefore, Panchanama shall be deemed to be last authorization within meaning of Explanation 2 to section 158BE.

REFERRED : Dy. CIT v. M/s. Rakesh Sarin & Ors. (2014) 222 Taxman 84 (Madras) : (2014) 362 ITR 619 (Madras) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 0492 (Mad-HC) A. Rakesh Kumar Jain v. Jt. CIT (2012) 254 CTR 0576 (Mad) : (2012) 80 DTR 0257 (Mad) : 2013 TaxPub(DT) 0208 (Mad-HC) C. Ramaiah Reddy v. Asstt. CIT (2011) 339 ITR 210 (Karnataka) : (2011) 244 CTR 126 (Karnataka) : 2011 TaxPub(DT) 2018 (Karn-HC) Dr. C. Balakrishnan Nair & Anr. v. CIT & Anr. (1999) 237 ITR 70 (Ker) : 1999 TaxPub(DT) 1121 (Ker-HC)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

OR Try Reload the Page