High Court affirms Tribunal's order on remand. Validity of notices upheld. Commissioner's approval doesn't need prior notice.

Sakthivel Bankers Versus Assistant Commissioner, Rana Investments Versus Assistant Commissioner, Rana Cotton Yarn Versus Assistant Commissioner, Saraswathi And Co. Versus Assistant Commissioner

Sakthivel Bankers Versus Assistant Commissioner, Rana Investments Versus Assistant Commissioner, Rana Cotton Yarn Versus Assistant Commissioner, ... Issues Involved: Validity of Tribunal's order directing remand to Assessing Officer, issuance of notices to firms and wife of individual not covered by search warrant, validity of notices under section 158BD, enlargement of limitation period under section 158BE, duty of Commissioner u/s 158BG.

Validity of Tribunal's Order: The High Court held that the Tribunal's order directing remand to the Assessing Officer did not violate the limitation period prescribed under section 158BE. The court clarified that the limitation under section 158BE is only for making the initial order and does not restrict the appellate authority from remanding the matter for a fresh order if defects are found. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision to remand the case was deemed valid.

Issuance of Notices: Notices were issued to eight firms and the wife of an individual, even though the search warrant was not against them. The court referred to section 158BD, which allows the Assessing Officer to proceed against any person if undisclosed income belongs to them, regardless of the search target. The High Court upheld the validity of the notices issued to the firms and the wife, stating that the provisions of Chapter XIV-B applied to them appropriately.

Enlargement of Limitation Period: The appellant argued that the Tribunal's order extending the limitation period under section 158BE was impermissible. However, the court cited a previous case where it was established that the limitation under section 158BE is not a hindrance for the appellate authority to remand the matter for a fresh order due to identified defects. Therefore, the enlargement of the limitation period by the Tribunal was considered valid.

Duty of Commissioner u/s 158BG: The appellant contended that the Commissioner should issue a notice before approving the Assessing Officer's order, as per section 158BG. The court rejected this argument, stating that section 158BG does not mandate the Commissioner to issue a notice to the assessee before approving the assessment order. As the approval was obtained, the court found no defect to render the initial order void ab initio. The appeal was dismissed, emphasizing that there was no merit in the appellant's contentions.