TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (7) TMI 797
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....manufacture of non-ferrous metals and telecommunication equipments. There was a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 carried out at various locations being the offices and factories of M/s. Sterlite Industries Ltd. and all their group companies as also at the residential premises of all the Directors and top officials of the company on 08-12-1999. Consequent to the search, block assessment orders have been passed on 28-03-200002 under section 143(3) read with section 158BC of the Act by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle- I(3), Mumbai. The assessee had filed appeal against the block assessment order before the learned CIT(A)-XXXIII, Mumbai and came to be disposed of by the learned CIT(A) vide order dated 15-04-2004 which was the subject matter of appeal by the Revenue in IT(SS) A No. 426/Mum/2004 and cross objection against the said appeal was No. 154/Mum/2005. The appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection by the assessee came to be transferred to the Chennai Benches and the same have been numbered as IT(SS) A No. 182/Mds/2004 and C.O. No. 336/Mds/2005. 4. In the Revenue's appeal, the Revenue has raised the following ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5 lacs, made by the Assessing Officer on account of cost of the three paintings found at the residence of Mr. D.P. Agarwal, accepting the submission of the assessee that the burden to prove the origin of the paintings in that of Mr. D.P. Agarwal and not of the assessee company without taking into account the explanation submiitted before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings that three paintings found have already accounted and were part of the furniture provided at the residence of their CMD Shri Anil Agarwal. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5 lacs, made by the Assessing Officer on account of donation to Adivasi Vikas Sangathan, on the ground that it cannot be considered as undisclosed income of the block period. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the amendment to section 113 being prospective in nature, no separate surcharge is leviable on the tax rate of60% on the undisclosed income computed for the block period in the case of the assessee for w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arch and consequently that the Assessing Officer had jurisdiction to consider the disallowance of depreciation in the block assessment. 2. It is prayed that it be held that the disallowance of depreciation was made without jurisdiction and the same could not be part of the block assessment. VII 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) legally erred ion upholding the disallowance of depreciation on the copper smelter and the sulphuric acid plant of Rs. 27,50,00,000 for the period 1,04,1998 to 08.12.1999. 2. It is prayed that the Assessing Officer be directed to delete the disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 27,50,00,000. VIII 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating upon the ground that the entire foreign exchange fluctuation treated as cost was correctly includible as 'cost' and accordingly, depreciation of Rs. 3,70,27,309 was allowable on such cost. 2. It is prayed that it be held that the foreign exchange fluctuation be treated as cost and depreciation thereon be allowed. X 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of 13,21,591 made o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 1,48,60,000. XVII Each of the above ground is without prejudice to the other. XVIII The Respondent craves leave to add to, amend and/or alter any of the above grounds." 6. At the time of hearing it was submitted by the learned senior counsel on behalf of the assessee that in the assessee's cross objection grounds I (1 & 2), II(1 & 2), III(1 & 2) and IV(1 & 2) were legal issues which went to the root of the assessment insofar as the assessee had challenged the validity of the assessment order itself. It was the submission that as these grounds went to the root of the assessment, they may be heard first. The learned DR did not object to the submissions. Consequently grounds I(1 & 2), II(1 & 2), III(1 & 2) and IV (1 & 2) were heard first. 7. It was the submission by the learned senior counsel that the assessee company was incorporated on 08-09-1975 under the name "Rainbow Investments Ltd." with its registered office at Calcutta. In October, 1976 the company's name was changed to M/. Sterlite Cable Ltd. In 1979 the registered office was shifted to the State of Maharashtra. The company started manufacture of PVC power cables, overhead power transmission conductor and ename....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al), who was in charge of purchase and stores etc. It was the submission that on 21.1.2000 the PO passed u/s. 132(3) was repeated and a fresh Panchnama was passed which is shown at pages 33 and 34 of the paper book. It was the submission that on 21.1.2000 the proceedings were started at 10 a.m. and was concluded at around 7 p.m. It was the submission that on 21.1.2000 also 14 files were seized and taken and a PO was imposed on the almirah in the room of General Manager (F & A) as also on the record room of M/s. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. The copy of PO was shown at pages 131 & 132 of the departmental paper book II. It was the submission that the Panchnama dated 21.1.2000 also showed that the search was temporarily concluded. It was the further submission that subsequently on 2.3.2000 the Prohibitory Order placed on 21.1.2000 was lifted at 2 p.m. and the search was treated as finally concluded at 8 p.m. It was the submission that as per the Panchnama dt. 2.3.2000 certain other documents were also seized as also a back up of computer was taken. It was the submission that other than the statements recorded on 8.12.1999, no statements had been recorded on either 21.1.2000 or 2.3.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere any cause shown as to why it was not practicable to effect the seizure of the documents which were placed before the Prohibitory Order. It was the further submitted that when a Prohibitory Order was placed, it was a restraint on the owner or the person in possession of the goods from removing and parting with the possession or dealing with the items on which the Prohibitory Order has been placed. The order of restraint is effective against the owner or person in possession thereof and was not to aim at the department itself which had placed the Prohibitory Order. He drew our attention to page 445 of the said decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court wherein it had been held as follows : "In our opinion, even when an order under section 132(3) has been passed, the Departmental officials are not restrained from examining the goods. An order under section 132(3) restrains the owner or the person in possession of the goods from removing, parting with possession or dealing with them. The order of restraint is effective against the owner or the person in possession thereof and is not aimed at the Department itself. By issuing an order under section 132(3), the Department is not res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... He also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Mrs. Sandhya P. Naik reported in 253 ITR 534 wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court had also categorically held that an action u/s 132(3) of the Act can be resorted to only if there is any practical difficulty in seizing the items which are liable to be seized and when there is no such practical difficulty the officer is left with no other alternative but to seize the items. It was the submission that a perusal of the decision of the Bombay High Court also clearly showed that by passing a restraint order the time limit available for framing the assessment order cannot be extended. 10. The learned senior counsel further placed relied upon the decision of the Third Member decision of the ITAT in the case of Nandlal M. Gandhi v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, reported in 308 ITR (AT) 314 (Mumbai) wherein the learned Third Member has followed the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Mrs. Sandhya P. Naik, referred to supra, to hold that by a restraint order u/s 132(3), the time limit available for framing the assessment order cannot be extended. It was t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inet which were the subject-matter of the Prohibitory Orders were not such in volume, weight or other physical characteristics and so dangerous in nature that it was not possible or practicable to take physical possession of the same and to remove them from that place. It was the submission that in the assessee's case the documents had already been found in the search held on 8.12.1999. An inventory was also taken in respect of the same and it was the subject matter of the prohibitory order and such documents were not such in volume, weight or other physical characteristics and so dangerous in nature that it was not possible or practicable to take physical possession of the same and to remove them from that place and all that was done on 21.1.2000 was only lifting the PO and taking part of the documents out into physical possession of the Revenue and keeping the balance under PO and on 2.3.2000 lifting the prohibitory order and taking possession of the balance documents from the almirah and the record room which were already under Prohibitory Order. It was thus the submission that the conclusion of the actual search took place on 8.12.1999 itself when all the documents which were s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rah kept in the premises after issuing an order under section 132(3). He further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Anil Minda reported in 328 ITR 320 to support his contention that the period of limitation of two years was from the date when last Panchnama was drawn in respect of any warrant of authorization, if more than one warrants of authorization existed. It was the submission that in regard to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mrs. Sandhya P. Naik, referred to supra, the decision had no applicability insofar as the decision was on account of the fact that the Officer who conducted the search was not one of the authorized Officers mentioned in the search warrant. It was the further submission that the other decisions had no applicability insofar as the last Panchnama in those cases had been treated as invalid as there was no seizure on the day when the last Panchnama was drawn. It was the submission that in the present case there was practical difficulty in seizing the documents insofar as the volume of documents was substantial. He placed before us a copy of the letter dated 07-01-2011 filed by the Office....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....neral points mentioned above, the team at copper smelter plant was asked to find out the following: a) Obtain the details of capital expenses on this project. The total expenses are about Rs.1200 crores. The findings may be communicated to the control room at Mumbai. This list may be scrutinized specially for any material received from Khapoli (near Mumbai) or Mumbai. b) Take in possession primary documents relating to receipt of material at the gate. Such documents may be obtained right from the time when the erection of plant was started. c) Statement of technical person in charge for erection of plant may be recorded regarding the total expenses incurred. He may also be asked about quantity of steel plates used for the erection of plant. d)Copies of civil and mechanical plan of the plant may be obtained. e)In case of list of requirements of materials prepared at the planning stage can be found, a copy may be obtained. f) A copy of the fixed asset register may be obtained if the same is found at the premises. g) Detailed inventory of all the capital equipment installed may also be taken. f) The technical person may be asked about the percentage of recovery....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecuring these vouchers and gate passes and gate pass registers the search was temporarily concluded. The record room was sealed as it had to be thoroughly searched. The search of the containers had also been completed by this time. The search could not be finally concluded because the entire record room had to be searched for more such vouchers or any other incriminating materials. As a matter of fact, during the course of search proceedings, it was also found that the assessee had claimed bogus transport expenses on these non-existent purchases. These vouchers also had to be located for further proof of assessee's tax evasion. Tentative list of inflated purchases and list of alleged transports were faxed during the course of search to the organizing DDIT's control room and they were constantly briefed. At this juncture only, the JNE unit was deployed as others left the search by 8th evening. Only 3 it is, 2 clerical staff and I were involved in the continuing of the search. As the search had continued for 2 days, it was imperative to temporarily conclude the search. The materials unearthed also required enquirIes to be conducted, about the movement of transport vehicles arrivin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an 400 to 500 Kilograms and all the original documents including the warrant in original, 12anchanamas, copies of papers were handed over the Income Tax Officer attached to the organizing unit on 03-03-2010. I, therefore, submit that there has been no unreasonable delay in search proceedings in the instant case. The volume of the material was such that search had to take place on various dates. My other official duties, most of which were also of urgent nature kept me away from headquarters for a long period, required the temporary conclusion of the search. I was not available in headquarters for a long period. Moreover, the period spent on travel for pre- search work like conducting of discrete enquiries, reconnaissance are not reflected in the bill. During the year, I had concluded 14 searches and organised a further 12 consequential searches. These searches involved enquiry and other work in a time bound manner, which also required time during this period. As Deputy Director of Income-tax, during this period several confidential and discreet enquiries were also made. As mentioned earlier these are not reflected in the Travelling Allowance bills. Hence, I submit that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted that the letter is on the basis of the records available and no fresh facts were being brought out. He also filed his written submissions extracted herein below : IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH, CHENNAI IT(SS)A No.182/Chny/2004 ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-VI(4), CHENNAI VERSUS STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD CHENNAI WRITTEN SUBMISSION Gr. 1 & 2 : Disallowance of excess depreciation - Rs. 7,89,37,070 & Rs.60.21,808: A) A.O. held that assessee inflated cost of fixed assets of Copper Sulphate and Sulphuric Acid plant on account of bogus purchase of steel and thereby claimed excess depreciation to the tune of Rs. 34,39,37,070. CIT(A) upheld addition only to the extent of Rs. 27,50,00,000 thereby resulting in deletion of sum of Rs. 7,89,37,070. B) During the course of block assessment proceedings, vide letter dated 26-07-2000, assessee was asked to furnish invoices of steel purchases & transportation from 19 parties mentioned therein. A show cause notice dated 21-12-2001 was also given to the assessee [ pages 1 to 2 of PB-II ]. C) Details of materials found during the course of search and result of enquiry made subsequently are discussed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tal expenditure was disallowed as under: Copper Smelter & sulphuric Acid Plant Rs.34,39,37,070 JFTC/OF Aurangabad, Non-ferrous Lonavala & Aluminium foils Sansawadi Rs. 60,21,808 G) Considering the absence of records relating to the receipt and consumption of steel at Tuticorin factory and the sworn statements of executives of the assessee company, CIT(A) vide para. 7.30 of his order held that evidence (both documentary as well as oral) came to light as a result of search operations at the premises of assessee which indicated irregularities in purchase of steel. However CIT(A) upheld only disallowance of depreciation to the extent of Rs. 27.50 crores as admitted by the assessee in the sworn statement made on 08-01-2000 by Chairman of assessee company and deleted the balance. Department is on appeal against such deletion. H) The only reason as per the order of CIT(A) for such deletion is that the purchases are evidenced by invoices and that the payments were made by cheque. CIT(A) erred in considering the result of search as well as further enquiries made by the A.O. as narrated above. The practice of making bogus purchase claims of steel was admitted by the top man....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee at Maker Chambers [ pages 110 to 113 of PB-II ] as per which there are discrepancies in the, claim of foreign exchange fluctuation accounted as well as supporting evidence available. On the basis of the said evidence, further enquiry conducted by the A.O. proved that a part of foreign currency loan was used to purchase plant and machinery indigenously. This fact is not evident from the Annual Report of the assessee company which was published before the date of search [ pages 105 to 109 of Paper book-II ]. But for the search, these facts would not have come to light and hence inclusion of the same as undisclosed income of the block period needs to be upheld. D) In fact, similar addition on account of excess depreciation on the foreign exchange fluctuation applying sec. 43A was made for the subsequent years as under: A.Y. 2000-01 : Rs. 57,22,250 [pages 35 of PB-II] A.Y. 2001-02: Rs. 1,37,40,930 [pages 65 to 66 of PB-II] A.Y. 2002-03: Rs. 1,03,05,697 [pages 78 of PB-II] A.Y. 2003-04: Rs. 77,29,273 [pages 98 to 99 of PB-II] These additions are not yet reversed. Gr. 4: Cash salary to Pansarl - Rs. 5.6 lakhs A) Page 15 of Ann. A/6 to Panchanama doted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Manufacturing and Calico Printing Co. Ltd (Guj) 244 ITR 156 Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. Vs. CIT (Del) 232 ITR 639 It was also held that even if the project did not ultimately materialize, still the expenditure will not change from the nature of capital expenditure to revenue expenditure. C) Assessee claimed that total expenses related to takeover of INDAL includes a sum of Rs. 2,94,82,000 under the head "Financial charges" and this includes a sum of Rs. 210 lakhs being amount paid to ICIC1 as 1.1% fees for sanctioning a loan of Rs.200 crores and such loan was used for normal business purposes. After considering this claim, A.O. granted deduction of Rs.210 lakhs from the total expenditure for INDAL takeover and the balance of Rs.3,81,36,878 was disallowed as capital expenditure. D) CIT(A) in para.13.2 of his order held that such disallowance cannot be made in block assessment since expenses are already included in the regular books of account and there is no falsity in such expenses. It may be noted that These facts are not evident from the Annual Report of the ussessee company which was published before the date of search [ pages 105 to 109 of Paper book - II]. But....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ises and was finally concluded with seizure of documents as evident from the panchanama dated 02-03-2000 [pg. 35 & 36 of Paper Book- I] B) The last panchanama was drawn on 02-03-2000 and block assessment was completed on 28-03-2002 which is well within the time provided under sec. 158BE(1)(b) r.w. Expl. 2. Assessee's argument that no prohibitory order u/s 132(3) was made on 21-01 -2000 and that the period provided u/s 132(8A) was exceeded, are against facts on record. Order u/s 132(3) passed on 21-01-2000 is distinct from the one passed on 09-12-1999. Further sec. 132(8A) refers to the date of order u/s 132(3) and not from the date of initiation of search. The issue is discussed in detail by the CIT(A) in para. 4.3 of his order. Further I rely on the following decisions: Trilok Singh Dhillon Vs. CIT (chattisgard) 332 ITR 185 M.B. Lal Vs CIT (Del) 279 ITR 298 CIT Vs Paras Rice Mills (P&H) 313 ITR 182 CIT & Anr. Vs Dr. C. Balakrishnan Nair & Anr. (Ker) 282 ITR 158 CIT Vs Anil Minda & ors. (Del) 328 ITR 320 In these decisions it was held that validity / legality of the actions of ADIT(lnv.) who conducted the search and passed prohibitory order u/s 132(3) cannot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rievance that :- The income computed in the block assessment is not undisclosed income. The income computed in the block assessment does not pertain to the block period, or The disclosed income for various years falling within the block period were not given credit to there is no merit in the argument of the assessee. C) Assessee is not questioning the jurisdiction of the A.O. to pass the Block assessment order. Hence, at the most, it is a procedural irregularity for which the matter can be remitted to the AO as held by the Apex Court in Deepak Agro foods Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SC). Gr. IV : Whether block assessment order made without issuing show cause notice is invalid ? A) Immediately after filing of Block return on 24-07-2000, notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 26-07-2000 [page 133 of PB-II] and acknowledged by the assessee [page 134 of PB-II]. Thereafter the case was posted for several days as revealed from the order sheet and assessee was heard substantially and assessee filed several written submissions which were reproduced in the assessment order. Some enquiry letters issued in this regard are available in pages 135 to 144 of PB-II. There is no ru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....teel, the purchase of which was found to be bogus during the course of search. The financial statements such as profit and loss account and balance sheet for the year ending 31-03-1999 was prepared by the assessee company on the basis of such books of account and got audited, directors placed their signature , got printed and placed before the Annual General Meeting of the shareholders and got approved by it. The moot point here is whether the assessee mis-recorded the cost of assets in the books of account maintained in the normal course and but for the search, depreciation would have been allowable on such inflated cost. C) Considering the absence of records relating to the receipt and consumption of steel at Tuticorin factory and the sworn statements of executives of the assessee company, CIT(A) vide para. 7.30 of his order held that evidence (both documentary as well as oral) came to light as a result of search operations at the premises of assessee which indicated irregularities in purchase of steel. Sworn statement made on 08-01-2000 by the Chairman of the assessee company in which it was admitted that cost of the Fixed assets was inflated due to inclusion of infructuous c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oreign loans is allowable as revenue expenditure. A) Since the expenditure was not incurred for revenue items, the same cannot be considered as revenue expenditure as held by Apex Court in CIT Vs Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. (312 ITR 254). Gr. X : Addition on account of unaccounted expenses - Rs. 13.21,591 A) Page 43 of Ann. A/2 to Panchanama dated 08-12-1999 drawn at Tulsiani Chamber office [ page 129 of PB-II ] showed cash payment for certain expenses amounting to Rs. 13,21,591 which do not find place in the regular books of accounts maintained by the assessee. Assessee also could not explain the nature of such expenses as well as reconcile the same with the books of accounts. Hence the same was treated as undisclosed income. Gr. XI to XIII: Addition on account of personal travel expenses of directors -Rs. 19 lakhs A) Page 44 of Ann. A/2 to Panchanama dated 08-12-1999 drawn at Tulsiani Chamber office [page 130 of PB-II ] showed cash payment of Rs. 5 lakhs towards foreign travel expenses of Mrs, Suman Agarwal and Rs. 14 lakhs to Mrs. Vedavati Agarwal. Following the decision of Madras high court in CIT Vs T.S. Hazee Moosa & Co. (153 ITR 422), the foreign trip und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....I] and reply was considered. Gr. XVI: Addition on account of unaccounted payment to Shri Tarun Jain -Rs. 1.48,60,000 A) Page 42 of Ann. A/2 to Panchanama dated 8-12-1999 drawn at Tulsiani Chamber office [ page 128 of PB-II ] showed list of payments and receipt for the period 01-04-1994 to 31-01-1999 aggregating payments of Rs. 1,48,60,000. Assessee admitted them as cash given to Shri Tarun Jain, Director (Finance) of assessee company as interest amount. A.O. found that there is no reconciliation of cash withdrawal from the bank and cash deposit with Shri Tarun Jain on the dates mentioned on the seized material. Similarly there is no reconciliation of deposits back in bank of the above cash of Rs. 1,48,60,000. Books of account maintained by the assessee do not reflect such transactions. Hence such payments made to Shri Tarun Jain were assessed as undisclosed income. (Shaji P Jacob) Sr. Departmental Representative, ITAT, Chennai 17. We have considered the rival submissions. At the outset we have to decide on the admissibility of the letter filed by the learned DR of the Officer, Shri P. Selvaganesh, Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, TDS Range-I, Chennai, who was on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i. h) Subsequently, on 21.1.2000 the Dy. Director of Income-tax (Inv.), Tirunelveli re-entered the premises of the assessee at Tuticorin at 10 a.m. and continued the search till 7 p.m. on 21.1.2000. This is also on the basis of a warrant of authorization dated 8-12-1999. i) On 21.1.2000 at 7 p.m. certain documents were seized and further Prohibitory Order on the same almirah in the room of General Manager (F& A) and the record room was placed. j) Nothing fresh was found in the course of the search on 21.1.2000 as is evident from para 5(b) of the Panchnama. k) Subsequently, on 2.3.2000 the authorized Officer again re-entered the premises of the assessee at Tuticorin at 2 p.m. and the Panchnama recorded the search to have been finally concluded at 8 p.m. Nothing was found again as per the said Panchnama. However, seizures have been done. 19. Thus what is noticed here is that there are two warrants of authorization. One dated 2-12-1999 duly signed and sealed by the Dy. Director of Income-tax (Investigation), Mumbai and another duly signed and sealed by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Tirunelveli dated 8-12-1999. It is evident that these are two different searches ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....11, a list of tentative bogus vouchers had been identified by generating a list of vouchers without gate pass numbers from the company's computer system and the vouchers had been located in the record room and had also been seized and after securing the vouchers and the gate pass register, statements were recorded on such evidences found in the course of survey u/s 133A. The letter dated 07-01-2011 of the Officer also clearly shows that all the necessary documents had been found. 20. The said letter dated 07-01-2011 also clearly shows that when it was found that there was large scale tax evasion and materials were voluminous and the same was connected to the organizing Dy. Director of Income-tax (Inv.), it was suggested that the survey should be converted into a search and according the warrant of authorization was obtained from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Tirunelveli. This resulted in the Panchnama being issued on 08-12- 1999 by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Tirunelveli. Here we may specifically mention that we are unable to comprehend how a search team left for Tuticorin on the early morning of 08-12-1999, recorded statements, verified documents and vouchers,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 09-12- 1999 itself. Here it is specifically noticed that if an ITO and an ITI could take away nearly 12 iron boxes containing the seized documents, how it was impractical for seizing the said nearly 12 iron boxes and taking them away on 09- 12-1999 itself when everything that was required to be found had already been found in the course of survey but was seized in the course of search. Thus once it is found that the documents had been found and seized on 09-12-1999 itself and on 02-03-2000 materials were only taken away from the premises on which Prohibitory Orders had been placed, the Prohibitory Orders which were placed on 09-12-1999 were for keeping under restraint documents which were practicable of seizure and consequently the Prohibitory Order passed on 09-12-1999 and the limitation for passing the assessment order as per the provisions of section 158BE expired on 31.12.2001. Here we may also mention, in passing, that a perusal of the assessment order does not show of any of the documents having been considered in regard to the search conducted on the assessee's factory premises. 22. Another issue which comes up to the forefront is that there are two warrants of authoriz....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a result of the Panchnama issued by the Dy. Director of Income-tax (Inv.), Mumbai on 02-12-1999 as per the Panchanama recorded in regard to the said warrant of auhorisation is shown to have been finally concluded uon 22-02-2000. If this is so, any assessment on the basis of the warrant dated 02-12-1999 would get barred by limitation on 28- 02-2002. This is if we take all the Panchnamas as valid in relation to Mumbai search. If this is so, the assessment order dated 28-03-2002 cannot have any addition in relation to the search conducted on the basis of the warrant of authorization dated 02-12-1999. Then all that is left is the search conducted on the assessee on the basis of the warrant of authorization issued by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Tirunelveli on 08-12-1999. This warrant we have already explained as already been executed on 09-12-1999 itself as we have held that the Prohibitory Order issued on 09-12-1999 is invalid. Consequently, the Panchnama drawn on 21-01-2000 and 02-03-2000 become invalid. 24. Though we have found that there are two warrants of authorization and consequently there should be two assessments, we are of the view that this is only a technical ....