TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (8) TMI 908
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of the common set of facts, they were heard together are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience. 3. The facts relating to the above cited cases are stated in brief. M/s. Harbour Syndicate is a partnership firm consisting of four partners in which Shri V.H. Yahia is the managing partner. The Revenue carried out search and seizure operations in the hands of Shri V.H.M. Rafeeq and Shri V.H. Yahia on 06-09-2000. Consequent to the search operations, the assessments were completed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 158BC of the Act in the hands of M/s. Harbour Syndicate. The assessment in the hands of Shri V.H. Yahia was, however, completed u/s. 158BD r.w.s. 158BC r.w.s. 144 of the Act. 4. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ised Officer Shri K.G.K. Pillai, Income Tax Officer (CIB) Ernakulam. The relevant portions of the said Panchanama highlighted by the learned CA are reproduced below:- (A) Warrant in case of : Shri V.H.M. Rafeeq and Shri V.H. Yahia (B) Warrant to search (Details & ownership of place of Search ): M/s. Harbour Syndicate Essar Building, G.V. Iyer Road Cochin-682 003. Telephone No. : 668624 (C) (A) and (B) stated to be assessed by : (A) - (B) Nil Para 1 of the above Panchanama reads as under "On being called by Shri K.G.K.Pillai on 6-9-2000 at 9.45 A.M., we the above mentioned Panchas, presented ourselves at the above place of search. The Authorized Officer, Shri K.G.K. Pil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on whom a search is initiated u/s. 132 or requisition made u/s. 132A. In the present case, Assessing Officer has completed the assessment u/s. 158BC on the ground that a search was conducted in the case of the appellant firm. Action u/s. 132 should be evidenced by a warrant of search issued by the competent authority in the name of the assessee. Rule 112 of the Income Tax Rules prescribes the formalities in this regard in view of the provisions u/s. 132(1), warrant of authorization of search is to be issued against a "person" or against "any person" who fulfils any of the three conditions as laid down in sec. 132(1) in its clauses (a) (b) and (c). Hence the warrant of authorization u/s. is to be issued not in respect of premises, places ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Lekshmi Traders, supra. For the sake of convenience, we extract below the relevant observations made by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in this connection:- "But the only question raised is whether the notice issued by the Department based on which the block assessment was completed is valid or not. What we find from sec. 158BD is that no independent notice is contemplated under the said section because it only gives jurisdiction to the Assessing Officer to assess a person other than the searched person based on materials gathered during search. What is stated in sec. 158BD is that when any evidence is collected about income earned by a person other than the person searched u/s. 132, the officer who conducted the search shall hand ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....les and in the said notice what is called for is return in the prescribed format, i.e., in Form 2B, which is for making block assessment u/s. 158BC. So much so, even though the Assessing Officer has corrected sec. "158BC" to sec. "158BD", the contents of the notice satisfy the requirement of a notice under sec. 158BC as well". 9. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court extracted above, we agree with the contentions of the department that the assessment cannot be held as void ab initio, if the Assessing Officer did not mention the relevant section correctly in the assessment order. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) on this point. 10. Since the Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the appeals on me....