TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 1744
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....014 for the Assessment Years 2005-2006 to 2011-2012. 2. The ITAT while deciding the earlier appeals filed by the assessee-petitioner, M/s.Prathibha Jewellery House had given the following directions while remanding the case back to CIT (A). The same is quoted below for ready reference:- "2. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that the assessee has raised an additional ground of appeal particularly against the existence of conditions for issuance of warrant of search and the validity of the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act. In the remand report to the said additional grounds raised by the assessee, the AO has clearly not only rebutted the contentions of the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gainst the petitioner under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The relevant portions of the order are quoted hereinbelow for ready reference:- "8. In any case, as regards the justification or validity of search action u/s 132 with reference to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of C Ramaiah Reddy 339 ITR 210, the same is examined in light of the specific order of the Hon'ble ITAT. On going through the said decision, it is apparent that the issue before the Hon'ble Court was 'whether the Tribunal is competent to look into the issue regarding validity of search? With regard to the said issue, the Hon'ble High Court has answered the said issue in favour of the appellant holding that the Tribunal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to search action authorized and executed through valid warrants to search the appellant. The issue setaside before me vide the order of the Hon'ble ITAT vide their order dated 21.11.2014 in ITA Nos.579 to 585/Bang/2014 for A.Ys 2005-06 to 2011-12 is decided accordingly." 4. The assessee-petitioner preferred these writ petitions without filing an appeal before ITAT against the said order passed by the learned CIT(A) on 11.2.2015 and the present writ petitions were filed before this Court on 15.6.2015. 5. Mr. A.Shankar, the learned counsel for the assessee-petitioner submitted before the Court that learned CIT(A) was bound to consider the question of validity of Search against the assessee-petitioner under Section 132 of the Act, in view o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No.45250 of 2017 (C. Ramaiah Reddy v. Union of India). He therefore submitted that the matter should be remanded back to CIT(A) to reconsider the question of validity of search under Section 132 of the Act in view of the specific directions of the ITAT, which CIT(A) has failed to comply in the present case. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Revenue, Mr.K.V.Aravind supported the impugned order and urged that not only in view of the amendment of law with retrospective effect the CIT(A) could not go into the said question of validity of Search under Section 132 of the Act, but also because, since Civil Appeal No.2734 of 2013 (Asstt. CIT v. C. Ramaiah Reddy) against the decision of this Court in C.Ramaiah Reddy's case is still pen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... go into the reasons recorded by the concerned Income Tax Authority for directing Search against the assessee or tax payer. (iii) That this Amendment came after both, ITAT passed the order in the present case on 21.11.2014 as also the learned CIT(A) passed the impugned order on 11.2.2015. Nonetheless, retrospective effect of the said Amendment, will have its effect on the present case as well so long that the said Amendment holds the field. Therefore, the Appellate Authorities of the Department cannot be expected to go into the said question. It is only for the Constitutional Courts to examine the vires and validity of such Amendment and for that, a separate writ petition is already said to be pending. However, no such challenge to the Am....