TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 847
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment so made. 2. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. 3. A search & seizure action u/s 132(1) of the Act took place on 22/3/2006 at the business premises of M/s Balaji Perfumes group which is in the business of manufacturing and trading of Gutka under the brand name of 'Maruti' 'Ajeet' & Kaveri'. As mentioned by A.O in the assessment order, the group belongs to the family of late Sh. Bishan Sarup Gupta who has three sons namely Sh. Abhay Gupta, Sh. Ajay Gupta & Sh. Anoop Gupta. The whole business of manufacturing of gutka and sale/purchase of arcanut, according to the A.O is looked after by three brothers through the firm M/s Balaji Perfumes and M/s Assam Supari Traders. 4. The Assessing Officer ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... M/s Balaji Perfumes were also produced though no vouchers were produced. Before the A.O. the issue of validity of 153A proceedings was not raised. However, these issues were raised only during appellate proceedings. 7. Before the CIT(A) the assessee has taken the contention that the proceedings under 153A of the Income-tax Act 1961 was not valid in the assessee's case. The CIT(A) called for remand report which was received on 5/2/2009. The CIT(A) has held that the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer for passing order u/s 143 (3) read with Section 153A cannot be held as valid and thus allowed the appeal of the assessee. 8. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee has not informed that there is a dissolution of firm, thus warrant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... A search warrant cannot be executed/served on a person who is not in existence. The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of CIT Vs. Rakesh Kumar 313 ITR 305 issuance of search warrant in the name of dead person itself is against the law of natural justice and no valid assessment could have been made on the strength of such an invalid search warrant. Balaji Perfumes (Firm) and Balaji Perfumes (Prop. Concern) are two different persons as defined u/s 2(31) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Both are having different PAN. In the case of Prop. Concern the assessment made in the name of proprietor whereas in the case of Firm, a separate PAN is obtained. Firm being non-existent person, no warrant can be executed on non-existent person. Thus, ....