TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Validity of Individual Assessments under Section 132 Joint Warrants Upheld with Retrospective Amendment</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Devesh Singh</h3> Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Devesh Singh - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of joint warrants issued under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Assessment of individuals named in joint warrants.3. Impact of retrospective legislative amendments on ongoing legal proceedings.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Joint Warrants Issued Under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:A Division Bench of the High Court had conflicting views on the validity of joint warrants issued under Section 132. In the case of Raghuraj Pratap Singh vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, it was held that a joint warrant does not suffer from any infirmity. Conversely, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) v. Smt. Vandana Verma, the court held that a joint warrant could not be issued and assessments must be made collectively in the names of all persons in the status of an Association of Persons (AOP) or Body of Individuals (BOI). This conflict necessitated a referral to a Larger Bench.2. Assessment of Individuals Named in Joint Warrants:The case facts reveal that a search and seizure operation was conducted on the premises of Singh Group, and joint warrants were issued in the names of Sri Yogendra Singh, Sri Devesh Singh, and Sri Devendra Singh. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal on the preliminary ground that the assessment could not be made individually if the warrant was issued jointly, as per the law laid down in Smt. Vandana Verma's case. However, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, leading to the Revenue's appeal.3. Impact of Retrospective Legislative Amendments on Ongoing Legal Proceedings:The Finance Act, 2012, introduced Section 292CC with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1976, which clarified that it is not necessary to issue a separate authorisation in the name of each person. It also stated that mentioning more than one person in an authorisation does not imply it was issued in the name of an AOP or BOI. The new section further provided that assessments or reassessments should be made separately for each person mentioned in the authorisation.Effect of the Retrospective Amendment:The retrospective insertion of Section 292CC means that the provisions have been part of the Income-tax Act since 1st April, 1976. Consequently, the assessments made individually for persons named in a joint warrant are valid. The court cited precedents affirming that retrospective amendments must be considered in ongoing appeals, as they are continuations of the original proceedings.Conclusions:The Larger Bench concluded that the assessments made individually for each person named in the joint warrant were within the jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority. The orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal were set aside, and the matters were remanded to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide on merits. The substantial question of law was decided in favor of the Revenue, establishing that joint warrants can lead to individual assessments. The retrospective amendment rendered the legal principles in Smt. Vandana Verma and Smt. Madhu Chawla's cases insignificant. All appeals were disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 