ALL CARGO 153A CONFIRMED BY BOMBAY HIGH COURT ORDER DT21.4.2015

[MALAY CHATURVEDI]

“37. We do not see as to how while allowing the appeal of the assessee and setting aside the order of the Commissioner under section 263 could the judgment be said to be laying down a proposition and as canvassed by Mr. Pinto. True it is that the assessment which has to be made in pursuance of the notice is in relation to the six years. An order will have to be made in that regard. While making the order the income or the return of income filed for all these assessment years is to be taken into account. A reference will have to be made to the income disclosed therein. However, the scope of enquiry, though not confined as held by the High Court of Karnataka, it essentially revolves around the search or the requisition under section 132A as the case may be. We do not find anything in these observations and reproduced above which would enable us to conclude that the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Murli Agro requires reconsideration or does not lay down a correct principle of law. We cannot, therefore, accede to the submissions of Mr. Pinto and

revisit any of the conclusions rendered by the Division Bench of thisCourt.”

AI Summary

Scope of enquiry under search or requisition remains tied to search-linked matters; binding precedent upheld. An order setting aside a revisional Commissioner order does not create a new legal proposition; reassessment must consider returns for the relevant years but the scope of enquiry remains essentially tied to the search or requisition that prompted the action, and existing Division Bench precedent on that scope stands affirmed.