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

....ain objection raised was 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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....O admitted as under: "(c) The assessment is likely to be The block assessment is getting time barred on for assessment year for barred by limitation on 30th Nov., 01 (upto 17th Oct., 2000) the block period i.e. 1989-90 to 2000-2002." Copies of above letters are placed at pp. 27 and 29 of the paper book. In support of the claim that order passed on 30th Jan., 2003 did not make any difference and search should be treated as completed on 30th Nov., 2000. The learned counsel for 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.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d to the AO calling for his comments. The AO vide his letter dt. 16th Feb., 2004 has submitted that at no time during the course of assessment the appellant had objected the proceedings on the basis of limitation being expired on 30th Nov., 2002 and, therefore, the additional ground taken by the appellant may not be considered. According to the AO in this case the last Panchnama was drawn on 3rd Jan., 2001 and that the assessment order was passed well within the time allowed under s. 158BE(1)(b). In view of the above, it cannot be said that no proceedings had taken place on 3rd Jan., 2001 and therefore, the additional ground of the appellant is dismissed." 5. Objection of the AO that additional ground should not be considered as point of....