Search warrant naming the assessee supported block assessment, while a later disclosure scheme declaration gave no immunity.

Where the warrant of authorisation named the assessee and search was conducted under section 132, the authorities were entitled to proceed with block assessment under section 158BC; a separate individual warrant was not required on the facts, and the search could not be successfully challenged in the assessment proceedings. The court also held that a declaration under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 made after the search had begun did not confer immunity for the disclosed amount, and the certificate issued under the scheme could not override the statutory bar. The Revenue's position was upheld on both issues.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a search warrant issued in the names of the firm and its partners enabled the authorities to conduct search in the premises of a partner and make a block assessment under section 158BC; (ii) Whether the assessee was entitled to immunity under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 in respect of the declared sum of Rs. 4,00,000, and whether the Assessing Officer could treat the declaration as invalid.

Issue (i): Whether a search warrant issued in the names of the firm and its partners enabled the authorities to conduct search in the premises of a partner and make a block assessment under section 158BC.

Analysis: The warrant of authorization specifically mentioned the assessee's name, and the search was conducted pursuant to that warrant. In a block assessment, section 158BC applies where search has been conducted under section 132, while section 158BD governs assessments of other persons only when the statutory conditions for that provision are satisfied. The objection that a separate individual warrant was required was not accepted, since the combined warrant naming the assessee was sufficient and the assessee had participated in the proceedings. The Court also accepted that legality of the search could not be successfully assailed in the assessment proceedings on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in the affirmative against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee was entitled to immunity under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 in respect of the declared sum of Rs. 4,00,000, and whether the Assessing Officer could treat the declaration as invalid.

Analysis: The declaration under the scheme was made after the search had been initiated in the assessee's case. The Court held that the assessee was not eligible for immunity in respect of the disclosed amount, and the certificate issued under the scheme did not assist the assessee in defeating the block assessment. The finding of the Tribunal that the declaration could not override the effect of the search and the statutory bar under the scheme was held to be in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in the affirmative against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both substantial questions of law, and the block assessment and denial of immunity under the 1997 disclosure scheme were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee's name is included in the warrant of authorization and search is conducted under section 132, the authorities may proceed under section 158BC, and a declaration made under the disclosure scheme after such search does not confer immunity contrary to the statutory bar.

---