2015 (5) TMI 615

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onclusion that the basis of intervention by the Commissioner should be part of the records in the assessment proceedings of the assessee and the statements in the search operations regarding the son of the assessee could not be considered as forming part of assessment of the assessee and thus the action was invalid?" [1.1] It is required to be noted that both these References initially came to be heard by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram:-M.S. Shah & D.A. Mehta, JJ. [as they then were]) and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S. Shah (as he then was) was of the view that the issue was covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunathesware Packing Products reported in (1988) 231 ITR 53. Consequently, since the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....limitation being placed on the power of the Commissioner that the power under Section 263(1) can be exercised only on the basis of the statements which are recorded in the course of search and seizure operations in respect of the very assessee and not in respect of any other person. The Apex Court has in terms overruled the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Ganga Properties' case (118 ITR 447) on which the Tribunal had relied while passing the order giving rise to these references. 7. As regards the reasoning which appealed to the Tribunal, the word "therein" is not necessarily capable of the interpretation which appealed to the Tribunal. When the Commissioner examines the record of search and seizure operations in respect of any ....