2006 (11) TMI 252

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that search in the case of the assessee carried under s. 132(1) was concluded on 17th Nov., 2000 when Panchnama was prepared and restraint order was issued against the assessee. The limitation to make and complete assessment started from the above date and accordingly order under s. 158BC was to be passed before 30th Nov., 2002. The same was passed on 30th Jan., 2003 and was hopelessly out of time. It was contended that no seizure was effected on 3rd Jan., 2001 and, therefore, question of issuing any Panchnama on the above date did not arise. In fact in the so-called Panchnama issued on 3rd Jan., 2001, it is specifically admitted by the competent authority that it was a release order. From the copy of the aforesaid Panchnama available at p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the assessee relied upon decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of B.K. Nowlakha vs. Union of India (1992) 101 CTR (Del) 73 : (1991) 192 ITR 436 (Del). The aforesaid decision was followed by Calcutta High Court in the case of Mahesh Kumar Agarwal vs. Dy. Director of IT (Inv.) (2003) 180 CTR (Cal) 517 : (2003) 260 ITR 67 (Cal). Their Lordships of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mrs. Sandhya P. Naik (2002) 178 CTR (Bom) 448 : (2002) 253 ITR 534 (Bom) also laid down similar proposition and held that restraint order not amounting to seizure cannot be taken into account for calculating period of limitation for framing an assessment. The learned counsel also relied upon several decisions of Tribunal Benches, noted in the im....