AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 1200
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt of Delhi at New Delhi in ITA No. 582 of 2009 and other allied appeals, by which the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the said appeals preferred by the Revenue and set aside the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short, 'ITAT') holding that the assessment orders passed in the case of the respective assessees were time barred as the assessments were not completed within two years from the end of the month in which the last authorisation for search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was issued, the respective assessees have preferred the present appeals. 2. For the sake of convenience, the facts arising out of the impugned judgment and order p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ees filed appeals challenging the assessment orders, inter alia, on the ground that the assessment was time barred. According to the assessees, limitation of two years as prescribed under section 158BE of the Act, which was to be computed when Panchnama in respect of the second authorization was executed, i.e., on 26.03.2001. Since that Panchnama was drawn on 26.03.2001, two years period as prescribed under Section 158BE(b) of the Act came to an end by March, 2003 and the assessment order was passed in April, 2003, which according to the assessee was thus time barred. On the other hand, the plea of the department was that since the last Panchnama through related to search authorization dated 13.03.2001 was executed on 11.04.2001, limitation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the present case the last authorization was on 26.03.2001 and therefore as per Explanation 2 to Section 158BE of the Act the last authorization would be the starting point of limitation. It is submitted that therefore even if the first authorization dated 13.03.2001 was executed on a later date i.e., on 11.04.2001, that would be of no consequence and for the purpose of reckoning the limitation period, the first authorization is irrelevant and it is the "last of the authorization" which has to be kept in mind. It is submitted that in the present case, the last authorization is dated 26.03.2001 which was executed on the same date and therefore the period of two years is to be counted from that date. 3.3 Learned counsel appearing on beha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t authorizations, ultimately the assessment proceedings would be on the basis of the entire material collected during the search and on the basis of the Panchnama drawn. It is submitted that therefore the date on which the last Panchnama was drawn is the relevant date for the purpose of block assessment. In support of his submission, Shri Balbir Singh, learned ASG has heavily relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of VLS Finance Limited & Another v. Commissioner of Income Tax & Another, (2016) 12 SCC 32 (paragraphs 26 to 28). 5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, the short question which is posed for the consideration of this Court is, whether the period of limitation of two years for the block assessmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ments or any assets requisitioned after the 30th day of June, 1995 but before the 1st day of January, 1997; and (b) two years from the end of the month in which the notice under this Chapter was served on such other person in respect of search initiated or books of account or other documents or any assets are requisitioned on or after the 1st day of January, 1997. [Explanation 1.-In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of this section,- (i) the period during which the assessment proceeding is stayed by an order or injunction of any court; or (ii) the period commencing from the day on which the Assessing Officer directs the assessee to get his accounts audited under sub-section (2- A) of Sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en issued; (b) in the case of requisition under Section 132-A, on the actual receipt of the books of account or other documents or assets by the Authorised Officer.]" 7. In the present case, the first authorization was issued on 13.03.2001 which ultimately and finally concluded and/or culminated into Panchnama on 11.04.2001. However, in between there was one another authorization dated 26.03.2001 with respect to one locker and the same was executed on 26.03.2001 itself and Panchnama for the same was drawn on 26.03.2001. However, Panchnama drawn with respect to authorization dated 13.03.2001 was lastly drawn on 11.04.2001. As observed and held by this Court in the case of VLS Finance Limited (supra), the relevant date would be th....