TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (11) TMI 577
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mises was searched on 27.03.2003; later another raid was conducted and was concluded on 17.06.2003 and the second raid was after a period of 81 days and there was no reason given by the Revenue as to why they came after a period of three months. Further, it was stated that in respect of the office premises, raid was conducted on 27.03.2003 and it was continued on 28.03.2003 and once-again, the Revenue came on 11.03.2003 and continued the raid in the business premises till 14.06.2003. Further it is contended that the Department did not give any reason why there was so much delay between the first and second search and the second search was not valid as it was not the continuation of the first search. Thus the second search being illegal; only the first raid could be taken for the purpose of limitation. As the Department has to pass orders within 2 years from the end of the month in which the last panchanama was drawn; limitation period starts from 01.04.2003 and the assessment ought to have been completed on or before 31.03.2005. 4. In support of the above contention, reliance was placed on the decision of the Kerala High Court reported in (1999) 237 ITR 70 in the case of Dr.C.Bala....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the question of jurisdiction raised on the basis of limitation pleaded, the writ petition was maintainable. Further considering the order passed in the stay petition in the writ proceedings, Revenue and the assessee contested the appeal on other issues. As regards the plea of limitation, learned Single Judge rejected the case of the Revenue that the last panchanama dated 28.08.2003 could not be treated as the starting point for limitation. Pointing out that the panchanama dated 12.06.2003 and 14.06.2003 recorded that the search in the residential and office premises were finally concluded on 17.06.2003 and 14.06.2003, the search on the Standard Chartered Bank on 28.08.2003 was fresh search. For this distance of time, there was no valid explanation. Learned Single Judge pointed out that the prohibitory order passed on 27.03.2003 and 28.03.2003 became ineffective after 27.05.2003 and 28.05.2003 and the seizures following the lifting of the panchanama dated 17.06.2003 and 12.06.2003, 14.06.2003 were not in continuation of the search commenced on 27.03.2003 and 28.03.2003. Thus learned Single Judge held that the search concluded on 27.03.2003 and 28.08.2003 and the panchanama drawn o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peal filed by the Revenue on account of the order passed by learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment herein. As against the said order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Revenue preferred Tax Case (Appeal) before this Court and the same is pending. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the assessee reiterated that the search was conducted on 27.03.2003 and it ended on 28.03.2003. In terms of Section 158B of the Act, which defines the "block period" as the period comprising previous years relevant to six assessment years preceding the previous year in which the search was conducted under Section 132 or any requisition was made under Section 132A and also includes the period up to the date of the commencement of such search or date of such requisition in the previous year in which the said search was conducted or requisition was made. Therefore, it is the contention of the respondent/assessee that the block period to be reckoned under Section 158BA along with Section 158BB of the Act for the purpose of assessment shall be by reckoning the date on which panchanama was recorded i.e., 28.03.2003. Therefore, the subsequent panchanama recorded on 28.08.2003 cannot be t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... date of filing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 for any previous year has not expired and such income or the transactions relating to such income are recorded on or before the date of the search or requisition in the books of account or other documents mentioned in the normal course relating to such previous years, the said income shall not be included in the block period." Time limit for completion of block assessment. 158BE. (1) The order under section 158BC shall be passed- (a) within one year from the end of the month in which the last of the authorisations for search under section 132 or for requisition under section 132A, as the case may be, was executed in cases where a search is initiated or books of account or other documents or any assets are requisitioned after the 30th day of June, 1995, but before the 1st day of January, 1997; (b) within two years from the end of the month in which the last of the authorisations for search under section 132 or for requisition under section 132A, as the case may be, was executed in cases where a search is initiated or books of account or other documents or any assets are requisitioned on or after the 1st da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in relation to any person in whose case the warrant of authorisation has been issued; (b) in the case of requisition under section 132A, on the actual receipt of the books of account or other documents or assets by the Authorised Officer." As is evident from the reading of the provision to Section 158 BE of the Act, in the case of search conducted after 01.01.1996, it was declared that limitation for passing the order under Section 158 BE of the Act is given as 2 years from the end of the month in which last of the authorisation was executed. Explanation 2 clarifies "the authorisation referred to in Sub Section (1) shall be deemed to have been executed (a) in the case of search, on the conclusion of search as recorded in the last panchanama drawn in relation to any person in whose case the warrant of authorisation has been issued." Therefore, for finding out the limitation, all that is required to be seen is as to what is the last panchanama drawn in relation to the assessee, in whose case, warrant of authorisation was issued. 13. It is seen from the facts stated that the authorisation was issued by the Department on 26.03.2003 under Section 132 of the Act to search the resident....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y case, whatever be the annexures to the contents of the panchanama in the second search, it is open for the Revenue to make such of the assessment based on the materials covered in the course of second search. In the circumstances, the assessment fails in this case. 16. We do no accept the above said line of submission of learned counsel for the assessee. As already pointed out in the preceding paragraphs, in cases where there is more than one authorisation, the starting point of limitation is to be computed from the last of the authorisation which as per Explanation 2 to Sub Section 2 of Section 158 BE of the Act is deemed to have been executed on the conclusion of the search as recorded in the last panchanama drawn. Thus going by Explanation 2 added by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 with retrospective effect from 1.07.1995, the contention of the assessee cannot be accepted. Thus, with every panchanama drawn, the search team leaving the premises, the search conducted on 28.03.2003 came to an end as far as that authorisation was concerned. However the second search was admittedly on a fresh authorisation. Thus, in respect of search conducted on 27.03.2003 and 28.03.2003, panchanama....