TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (12) TMI 21
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see and his family members. In response to the notice issued under section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, the assessee filed a return showing income of Rs.11,05,374. Against this income, the assessment was completed at Rs.44,20,643, vide order dated December 31, 1997. Aggrieved by this order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. While assailing the order dated December 31, 1997, the assessee raised as many as 32 grounds. It was contended, inter alia, that the assessing and the authorised officers were biased and hostile to the appellants, that the rules of natural justice were not followed during the course of the proceedings, that the provisions of section 132(9) were not complied with, etc. The main ground apart from the merits was that the assessment was barred by limitation, the last date of completion being October 31, 1997. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal thought it fit to take up this ground about the impugned assessment being barred by limitation first inasmuch as it felt that if the assessee 'succeeded on this vital issue, the other issues would become only academic in nature. Accordingly, the parties were heard, on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uired to be drawn only in case of seizure and that an order under section 132(3) is not a panchanama as referred to in section 158BE of the Income-tax Act. As per the contention of the assessee, the last of the panchanamas in the execution of the search warrant was made on October 16, 1996, and hence, the assessment was barred by limitation on October 31, 1997. On behalf of the Department, it was submitted that the assessment was completed within one year of the execution of the search warrant and, as such, the assessment framed was within the statutory time. It was submitted that the search commenced on October 20, 1996, and concluded on December 13, 1996, when the last panchanama was drawn. According to learned counsel appearing for the Department, in between there was a lull because of the invervening holidays and Diwali days. Learned counsel referred to the second proviso to section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act and submitted that on October 20/21, 1996, at 2.30 a.m. it was not possible to remove from the residence of the assessee 45 kgs. of silverware. It was contended by him that all the silverware was put in the almirah and a prohibitory order was placed as per the second pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and the affidavit of Mr. Abrol, Assistant Commissioner, Circle-I, Margao, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that the search in this case was concluded on October 20, 1996, when the seizure of cash, jewellery and books of account was made and a valid panchanama was drawn and that the proceedings thereafter were only with regard to the restraint order under section 132(3) which did not amount to seizure in view of the Explanation to section 132 of the Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal accordingly held that the assessment stood barred by limitation on October 31, 1997. It also held that it was invalid. It further observed that since the assessee had succeeded on the preliminary ground that the assessment was barred by limitation, the other grounds were academic in nature and, therefore, it did not feel it necessary to adjudicate upon the same in view of the judgment of the Nagpur Special Bench in the case of Rahul Kumar Bajaj v. ITO [2000] 241 ITR (A.T.) 1 (SB). Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee in each case was allowed. Being aggrieved by the same, the Department, has now approached this court by way of filing these tax appeals. Learned co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arch comes to an end when the search party leaves the premises after carrying with it the seized material and thus authorisation for search is fully implemented and execution is complete. For this proposition, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Bench, Pune, took support of the decision of the Bangalore Bench in the case of Kirloskar Investments and Finance Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [1998] 67 ITD 504. In the present case at hand, the cupboard in which 45 kgs. of silver articles were kept was sealed by making an order under section 132(3) of the Income-tax Act. The authorised officers were obviously very much aware of the contents of the cupboard and the nature of the articles in view of the inventory made by them. They had also come to the conclusion that the said 45 kgs. of silver articles need not be seized. There was no practical impediment to seizure of the said 45 kgs. of silver, if it was considered by the authorised officer as necessary. The contention of learned counsel for the Department that it was not practical to seize huge quantity of silver at odd hours, was rightly held to be untenable by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, because at the same odd hour, the search party seized ....