TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (7) TMI 797
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cation 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 grounds : "1. On the facts and circumstances of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y 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 which Block Assessment order has been passed on 28-03-2002 i.e. befo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 on account of notings (page 43 of Annexure A/2 to Panchnama dated 8th December, 1999) alleged to represent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 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 enameled copper wire. In 1986 the company's name was changed to M/s. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. In 1988 the company came out with public i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 2.3.2000. It was thus the submission that the Prohibitory Order placed on 8.12.1999 and 21.1.2000 were totally illegal insofar as, as per the pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t 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 restrained from examining the goods in respect of which a restraint order has been passed. There was no valid reason, therefore, for seeking to re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rein 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 thus the submission that the search having been concluded on 8-12-1999 the assessment order was liable to be passed by 31-12-2001. Consequently, the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 searched and were found and put under Prohibitory Order, even though there was no impracticability in seizing and taking away the said documents and conse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T 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 Officer, who had conducted the search on the assessee's premises on 8.12.1999 addressed to the Sr. Departmental Representative of the Income Tax Appellate Tribun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 from copper concentrate. While proceeding on these lines and when computers were examined, it was found that certain bills which had appeared in the computer system had not been entered in the gat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een 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 arriving at Tuticorin and in the State of Tamil Nadu. On temporary conclusion, I returned to my Head Quarters in Tirunelveli at about 11.00 clock and placed the materials in a small safe room at Tirunelveli. On 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 there was no delay. (P Selvaganesh) Addl. Commissioner of income tax (TDS), Chennai Copy submitted to the CIT (TDS), Chennai for information. Copy to : 1. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai-III, Chennai. 2. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y/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 in pages 9 & 10 of assessment order. It was observed that there exists no evidence to prove that the alleged quantity of steel reached the factory premises of the company no evidence to prove that the alleged quantity of steel was taken on stock reco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 management of the assessee company who are all well qualified persons as well as third parties conniving with the assessee in such transactions. In this regard, I rely on CIT Vs Hotel Mariya (Ker) 332 ITR 537. I) In fact, consequential addition on account of bogus depreciation on the balance WDV was made for the subsequent years as under: A.Y. 2000-01 : Rs. 5,34,59,563 [pages 31 to 34 of PB-II] A.Y. 2001-02: Rs. 12,97,14,484....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 08-12-1999 drawn at Dhanraj Mahal office [ page 114 of PB-II] showed cash payment of Rs. 5.6 lakhs to Sri B.K. Pansari, a senior executive of assessee company. When there are two columns mentioning accounted and unaccounted payments to the employees and the accounted portion are reflected in the regular accounts, it presupposes that the unaccounted portion have been paid outside the books. Presumption given in sec. 132(4A) makes the contents of such seized material as correct. Thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIC1 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 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. E) I also rely on the following decisions: Triveni Engg. Works Ltd. Vs CIT (Del) 232 ITR 639 G.T.N. Textiles Ltd. Vs DCIT (Ker) 326 ITR 352 CIT Vs R.G. Scientific Enterprises P. Ltd. (Del) 311 ITR 401 Kwality Fun Foods & Restaurants (P.) Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai) 108 ITD 274 Gr. 6 : Cost of paintings - Rs. 5 lakhs A) In the inventory as per An....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assed 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 be questioned before the Tribunal who deals with only the assessment aspects. This view was also recently upheld by Hon'ble Madras High Court in Rakesh Sarin Vs DCIT reported in 333 ITR 451. C) The reasons for not seizing the books of account on the first day of search itself and time taken for completion of search are detailed by the particular officer (who was the Authorized Officer who conducted search on various dates in this case) in his letter which was furnished to the Bench by me during the course of hearing. D) Decisions relied on by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ods 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 rule that before conclusion of block assessment, a pre-assessment notice to be given. Gr. V to VII : Whether disallowance of depreciation could be subject of block assessment ? A) When the inflation in cost of building and plant and machinery through bogus purchase of steel was detected during the course of search, the deduction claimed by the assesee on such inflated cost ie. depreciation can be disallowed in the block assessment proceeding. The intention of search and block assessment proceeding is to detect the suppression of income or inflation of expenses done by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld 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 capital expenditure and as a result depreciation has been claimed / provided for in excess by an amount of Rs. 27.50 crores was also considered by the CIT(A) and hence upheld disallowance of depreciation to the extent of Rs. 27.50 crores for the block period [ para. 7.33 of order ]. D) Further I rely on the following decisions: Napar drugs (P.) Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT,Delhi-TM) 98 ITD 285 Mange ram Mittal Vs ACIT (ITAT,Del-SB] 103 ITD 389 CIT Vs Hotel Meriya (Ker) 332 ITR 537 E) Definition of "undisclosed income" appearing in sec. 158B(b) was amended by Finance Act, 2002 w.r.e.f. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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 undertaken by Mrs. Suman Agarwal was held to be not for the purpose of business and accordingly the said expenses was disallowed. Similarly the payments made to Mrs. Vedavati Agarwal amounting to Rs. 14 lakhs was also disallowed since assessee failed to establish that such expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee. B) CIT(A) in para. 11.3 of his order has held that since the paper was found in the office premises of the assessee, it is for the assessee to explain the entries in such paper. Since the evidence as indicated above were found in the business premises of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 one of the authorized Officers at the time of search of the present assessee. A perusal of the letter clearly shows that all that the Officer has done was to bring on record what was done in the course of the search and why the Prohibitory Order had been placed. This letter dated 07-01-2011 can in no way be considered as an additional evidence and would have to be considered as a statement given by a responsible officer of the Department who was involved in the course of search. Consequently, the same is taken on record and the objection taken by the learned senior counsel in regard to this letter stands rejected. 18. The facts in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 as two different warrant of authorization have been issued by two different Officers for searching two different premises. A perusal of the letter of the authorized Officer who conducted the search i.e. dated 07-01-2011 clearly showed that in the early morning of 8-12-1999 FAX was received from Mumbai and as per the direction therein the team proceeded to Tuticorin for action under section 133A of the Act. The FAX is clear and contained clear lines of enquiry. The area of enquiry has clearly been brought out. It is noticed that the statements recorded from Shri V. Ramanathan, General Manager (F&A) on 08-12-1999 is a statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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, contacted the Dy. Director of Income-tax, Mumbai, obtained a warrant of authorization from Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Tirunelveli and was able to initiate a search proceedings at Tuticorin on the same premises at 8.45 a.m. Be that as it may, the Officer says that the search could not be finally conclude because the entire record room had to be searched for more such vouchers or any other incriminating material which however is not supported by the Panchnama dated 21.1.2000 or dated 2.3.2000 as the Panchnama dated 21.1.2000 and 2.3.2000 do not talk of anything having been found but not seized. Thus the only conclusion that comes out of this letter when....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 authorization - one which was issued on 02-12-1999 which resulted in a search at Mumbai on 08-12-1999 and which has been marked as temporarily concluded on 08-12-1999 at 11.30 p.m. Another on the basis of a warrant of authorisation dated 08-12-1999 issued by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Tirunelveli. The warrant of authorization dated 08-12-1999 issued by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Tirunelveli resulted in the conversion of a survey into a search at the factory premises of the assessee dated 08-12-1999. Thus, these are two separate search proceedings. Only one assessment order has been passed. If the assessment order passed on 28-03-2002 is treated as a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 hitch which could be rectified insofar as the issues could be sent back to the Assessing Officer for passing two separate assessment orders. However, we are not doing so in the present case as the limitation for passing the assessment orders itself expired on 31-12-2001 and after 11 years sending it back would in no way help insofar as the limitation would continue to operate against the assessment order that could be passed afresh. 25. The argument of the learned DR that the Tribunal cannot go into the validity or otherwise of the administrative decision conducting the survey and seizure relied upon in the case of Paras Rice Mills, referred to supra, would not appl....