TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (10) TMI 699
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessees. 2. The facts leading to the controversy are the following. The following business concerns generally known as Carbo group have their office in Carbo House, Old Railway Station Road, Cochin-18 : 1. Carbographics Pvt. Ltd. 2. Carbo Colour Ltd. 3. Carbo Aquamarine Exports Pvt. Ltd. 4. Bethal Chemical Industries P. Ltd. 5. Kurian's Ink and Chemicals Ltd. 6. Jagannath Aqua Culture Tuticorin P. Ltd. 7. M/s. K. C. Thomas and Co. 8. M/s. Carbo Chemical Industries 9. M/s. Jose Kurian and Sons 3. The partners of the firms and directors of the companies are admittedly brothers by name Jose Cyriac and Jose Kurian, sons of one of the partners by name ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....portunity by the Assessing Officer to raise their objections against the income determined. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the claim of the assessees that sufficient opportunity was not given to raise objection against the proposal for assessment and so much so, he set aside all the assessments and remanded the cases to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Department challenged the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) before the Tribunal. The contention of the Revenue before the Tribunal was that the assessees after receipt of notices from the Assessing Officer took ten months' time to file even returns and, therefore, the assessees cannot com-plain that they were not given sufficient time by the Assessing Offi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... questioned in the first round of appeals which reached the Tribunal. Even though the remand order issued by the Tribunal did not authorise the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to consider the validity of assessments on the alleged ground of irregularity in the search, the Commissioner (Appeals) still proceeded to consider the assessees' contention in regard to the validity of search. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted the contention of the assessees that the search carried out with the warrant issued in the name of "Carbo group of concerns" was an invalid search and consequently assessments were cancelled by him. When the Revenue took up the matter in appeals before the Tribunal, three appeals were heard and decided by o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the partners named in the warrant. The first question to be considered is in the second round when the appeals were restored to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by the Tribunal, whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was entitled to consider the question of validity of assessments based on the irregularity in the warrant alleged by the assessees. We find force in the contention of the counsel for the Revenue and the findings of the Tribunal in their order challenged in I. T. A. No. 76 of 2010 that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) while considering the appeals after remand by the Tribunal should consider the appeals based on the directions contained in the Tribunal's order. It is to be noted that the assessees never contested ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... about the income determined in assessment. 6. Even though we have upheld the order of the Tribunal on the lack of jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to consider the validity of assessments after remand by the Tribunal, both sides argued merits on the validity of the assessments as well. After verifying the entries in the copies of search warrants produced, we have already noticed that in all the warrants the names of the assessees and the residential addresses of the assessees are given as place to be searched besides the head office of the Carbo group of concerns which was also authorised to be searched under the same warrant. In our view, there is nothing wrong in authorising search of a group of concerns by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Com-missioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has no jurisdiction to entertain such a contention. Further, on the merits also, we find no substance in the allegation of the assessees that the warrant is defective. In our view, the war-rants issued are free from the defect alleged by the assessees. What is required to be stated in the warrant is precise details about the assessees and the persons to be searched which are contained in the warrants issued in these cases because the group head office of all the business concerns and the residence of the persons in charge of business namely, partners and directors of the business concerns, were authorised to be searched. We, therefore, find no merit in the assessees' challenge against the validity of a....