| |
| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 4548 (Karn-HC) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 153A
Where the ITAT quashed the assessment under section 153A read with section 143(3) on the premise that warrant of authorization was produced before it, which was not done, then the matter was remitted to ITAT for decision afresh in accordance with law.
|
Search and seizure - Assessment under section 153A - Warrant of Authorization was issued jointly -
A search was conducted in the premises of the assessee and a Notice under section 153A was issued. AO called various details through various communications. The assessee challenged the issue of notice under section 153A before AO on the ground that the proceedings initiated under section 153A were illegal as the Search was illegal and prayed for dismissal of proceedings. AO, however, did not find any merit in the submissions made by the assessee and thereafter, framed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 153A. The Tribunal by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Smt. Vandana Verma 2011 TaxPub(DT) 0095 (Luck-HC) : (2011) 330 ITR 533 (All) held that Warrant of Authorization was issued jointly, however, the assessment has been made in individual capacity. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the Assessment framed under section 153A of the Act was not maintainable. Accordingly, the order of assessment under section 153A of the Act was annulled and the appeal preferred by the assessee was allowed. Assessee submitted that in fact a discrepancy has crept in the Order of the Tribunal inasmuch as the assessee had never produced the Warrant of Authorization before the Tribunal but had produced a copy of the Panchanama, which had been described as Warrant of Authorization. It was further submitted that the assessee was not in possession of the Warrant of Authorisation and was not in a position to produce the same. However, the Tribunal has proceeded on an incorrect factual premise. Held: The fact whether the assessee had produced Warrant of Authorization or the Panchanama can only be ascertained by Tribunal. Therefore, it would be deemed appropriate to quash the order passed by the Tribunal and to remit the matter to Tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law.
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : Matter remanded.
A.Y. : 2004-05
IN THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|