Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
The ITAT held that the search concluded on 26.03.2021, and the restraint order passed under section 132(3) was invalid as it failed to specify reasons justifying non-seizure, rendering the subsequent Panchnama dated 24.05.2021 ineffective to extend the limitation period. The tribunal found no new material seized during the visit on 24.05.2021, which was merely an inspection, not a search. Consequently, the limitation period for assessment crystallized upon the conclusion of the search on 26.03.2021. Since the assessment year 2021-22 was not involved, clause (xi) of section 153B was inapplicable. The impugned assessment orders, therefore, were barred by limitation under section 153B. The ITAT allowed the assessee's contention and quashed the assessment orders as time-barred.
The ITAT held that the search concluded on 26.03.2021, and the restraint order passed under section 132(3) was invalid as it failed to specify reasons justifying non-seizure, rendering the subsequent Panchnama dated 24.05.2021 ineffective to extend the limitation period. The tribunal found no new material seized during the visit on 24.05.2021, which was merely an inspection, not a search. Consequently, the limitation period for assessment crystallized upon the conclusion of the search on 26.03.2021. Since the assessment year 2021-22 was not involved, clause (xi) of section 153B was inapplicable. The impugned assessment orders, therefore, were barred by limitation under section 153B. The ITAT allowed the assessee's contention and quashed the assessment orders as time-barred.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
