Revenue appeal succeeds, assessment order upheld within limitation period. Petitioner directed to seek remedies.

The court allowed the Revenue's appeal, setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge, and upheld the assessment order dated 30.06.2005 as within the limitation period. The writ petitions challenging the recovery proceedings were dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to seek remedies through the appropriate legal channels.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the second search and its impact on the limitation period for assessment.
2. Maintainability of the writ petition despite the pending statutory appeal.
3. Jurisdictional question based on the limitation period.
4. Recovery proceedings challenged by the petitioner.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Second Search and Limitation Period:
The primary issue revolves around whether the second search conducted by the Revenue was valid and whether it impacted the limitation period for completing the assessment. The assessee contended that the second search was not a continuation of the first search and hence was illegal. The first search concluded on 28.03.2003, and the assessment should have been completed by 31.03.2005. The Revenue argued that the last panchanama dated 28.08.2003 should be the starting point for the two-year limitation period, making the assessment order dated 30.06.2005 valid.

The court analyzed Section 158BE of the Income Tax Act, which specifies that the limitation period is two years from the end of the month in which the last of the authorizations for search was executed. The court concluded that the second search was conducted under a fresh authorization and the last panchanama dated 28.08.2003 was valid. Therefore, the assessment order dated 30.06.2005 was within the limitation period.

2. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The Revenue argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as the assessee had already filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was decided in favor of the assessee, and the Revenue's appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was pending. The court held that the writ petition was maintainable considering the jurisdictional question of limitation raised by the assessee.

3. Jurisdictional Question Based on Limitation:
The court examined whether the assessment order was passed within the jurisdictional time frame. The assessee relied on precedents from the Kerala High Court and the Bombay High Court, asserting that the second search was not a continuation and hence should not affect the limitation period. The court, however, referred to Explanation 2 to Section 158BE, which states that the limitation period should be reckoned from the date of the last panchanama. The court concluded that the second search was valid and the limitation period started from 28.08.2003, making the assessment order dated 30.06.2005 within the permissible period.

4. Recovery Proceedings Challenged by the Petitioner:
The petitioner, who is the daughter of the defaulter, challenged the recovery proceedings based on a settlement deed in her favor. The court noted that the Act provides an effective forum for aggrieved parties to seek remedies and declined to interfere with the recovery proceedings. The petitioner was advised to pursue her remedies in accordance with the law.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the Revenue's appeal, setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge, and upheld the assessment order dated 30.06.2005 as within the limitation period. The writ petitions challenging the recovery proceedings were dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to seek remedies through the appropriate legal channels.

---