TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (8) TMI 726
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9 to 22nd December, 1999 under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act ("the Act" for short) were disposed of against revenue and appeals filed by assessee were allowed. 2. Succinctly stating the facts are that search and seizure operation was carried out under Section 132A in the case of M/s Kashyap Motors Private Limited on 22nd December, 1999 and on subsequent dates. One of the assessees i.e. R. Kashyap, was the Managing Director of the said company M/s Kashyap Motors Private Limited at the relevant time. The Assessing Officer (AO) made some additions on substantive basis and some on protective basis and computed the undisclosed income qua both the assessees. Before passing the assessment order, AO passed order for special audit on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd to the dates of search and various panchnamas prepared on 22.12.1999, 14.1.2000 and 19.12.2000. The examination of the panchnama placed on record clearly shows that on 22.12.1999, complete inventory of each item was prepared which is evident from the annexures annexed to the panchnama. There was no action from 22.12.1999 till 14.1.2000, when again some inventory was prepared after releasing some liquors. Further, there was no action for more than 11 months and it was only on 19.11.2000 that foreign currency as inventorized on 22.12.1999 was taken away and panchnama was drawn. The plain reading of the ratio laid down in the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court decisions as referred above clearly indicates that panchnama mentioned in Explanat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aroop Ram Kishan Agro Pvt. Ltd by the Delhi Tribunal in its order dated 18.9.2009, wherein it was held that before 1.4.2008 i.e. before amendment, the AO does not have the power to extend the time period suo-moto and limitation has to be computed with reference to the original period granted for special audit. The facts of these cases are identical to the facts discussed by the Tribunal in the above orders. Accordingly, we hold that assessment order passed by the AO in both the cases are barred by limitation on both the counts." 6. We do not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal on this issue as well. 7. There were similar issues before us in the case of CIT v Bishan Saroop Ram Kishan Agro Pvt. Ltd. And ot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n application made in this behalf by the Assessee, he could also grant extension of his own when there are good and sufficient reasons for such extension. Thus, it is noticed that sub section (2C) before the amendment did not empower the Assessing Officer to extend the time for submissions of special audit report under sub Section (2A). Further, the power of extension of time for submission of special audit report is also subject to limitation of a period of 180 days from the date on which the directions under section 142(2A) of the Act for the audit was received by the Assessee. It is an admitted fact that in the present case, the assessee had not made any application for extension of period of audit report. Therefore, the extension which ....