TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (5) TMI 308
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1][c] is concerned, there was no material inducing the reason to believe that, the appellant was in possession of any money or other asset which the appellant has not or would not disclose for the purposes of Income-tax Act to enable the Authorising Officer to issue the warrant and consequently, the block assessment requires to be annulled. The ration of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AJIT JAIN reported in 260 ITR 80 is relied upon. 3. [A] Without prejudice to the above, the income is excessive and liable to be reduced substantially, as ultimately what was found as ascribed to appellant was cash of Rs.1,00,000/-, investment in machinery of Rs.4,60,710/- and gold jewellery of Rs.16,00,000/- and therefore, in the absence of any evidence that any such income so assessed has been expended away, the assessment of income in excess of Rs.21,60,710/- requires to be deleted. 4. The appellant denies himself liable to be charged to surcharge levied in the block assessment, which under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case deserves to be cancelled. The authorities below failed to appreciate that surcharge is leviable only on the tax determined....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under:- "1. The appellant begs to submit the under mentioned additional grounds of appeal, which were not specifically urged in the original grounds of appeal filed at the time of institution of appeal, although the validity of the search was urged. The copies of the warrant were not given after search. Later, the Department filed the copies of the warrants of search in response to the direction of the Hon'ble Bench and repelling and distinguishing the decision cited of the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Chennai Bench in the case of ANJUGA CHIT FUNDS P. LTD. Reported in 113 ITD 67, a submission was made by the memo filed in writing dated 27/10/2009 in which relying upon the decision in the case of SRI GURU CHARAN SINGH in ITA No.172/Luc/2004 dated 28/08/2008 where a co-ordinate Bench has held that a joint warrant against two persons is bad in law and such warrant could not give jurisdiction to proceed with assessment u/s. 158BC of the Act, by enclosing the copy of the said decision and further praying in view of the divergent views between two benches of the Hon'ble ITAT, the matter might be referred to the Hon'ble President to constitute Special Bench. That although, the m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder in the case of C. Ramaiah Reddy [supra], it did not occur to my representative to specifically file this legal ground due to shear inadvertence as and when the matter came up for hearing and was being adjourned and this morning when the matter came up for hearing again, the Hon'ble Bench pointed out that specific legal ground had not been urged. After noticing the inadvertence lapse, the appellant has been advised by the learned Authorised Representative to file this additional ground, which may kindly be admitted and disposed off on merits for the advancement of substantial cause of justice having regard to the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 229 ITR 383 and Karnataka High Court in 70 ITR 70." The Relevant facts for appreciation of the additional ground are these:- 1. Pursuant to the warrant of authorization issued by the learned Director of Income-tax (Inv.), Bangalore, there was a search in the office premises of the appellant on 08/08/2002 and in the residential premises of the appellant on 08/08/2002. Copies of the panchanama drawn are placed at Pages No.1 to No.89 of the Paper book No.II. The copies of the warrant were not given to the appellant at ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is X-ray and scanning centre. In this case, search u/s. 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" in short"] was conducted on 8.8.2002 in the business and residential premises of the assessee. During the course of search proceedings, cash, registers pertaining to X-ray and scanning, bill nooks, jewelry items, etc., were found and seized. The Assessing Officer issued notice dated 31.12.2002 u/s. 158BC, in response to that the assessee filed his block return of income on 31.12.2002 declaring an undisclosed income of Rs.55,79,710. However, the assessment was farmed at an income of Rs.84,48,750 vide order dated 31.08.2004. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(Appeals) and challenged the validity of search and also contested the additions made by the AO, however, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide impugned order dated 28.01.2008. Now the assessee is in appeal. 8. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in this case the warrant of authorisation was issued in the joint names of Dr. N. Kannan, Dr. K. Lakshman and Dr. K. Praveen Kumar and not in the individual name of the assessee, thus the search was not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emises, it was not open for the assessing authority to assess VV alone on the basis of the assets and documents seized during the course of search by invoking the provisions of Chapter XIV-B in an individual capacity." 11. Similarly, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. P.J. Kumar (supra) has held that:- "It is settled law that the search to be conducted should be strictly in accordance with law. If an authorization is issued in the name of two persons and if block assessment order to be passed, it should be passed in the name of two persons. If the order is passed in the name of an individual and not in respect of both the persons mentioned in the authorisation, on the face of it the proceedings initiated and the assessment order passed is illegal." 12. In the present case also, no individual warrant of authorisation was issued and warrant of authorisation of search was in the joint names, therefore keeping in view the ratio laid down in the aforesaid referred to cases, we are of the view that in the present case the assessment framed u/s. 158BC is not maintainable. We order accordingly. 13. As regards to the cases relied by t....