Ravi Syal, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITSSA 174/DEL/2004

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1711 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 year(s) 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 15-03-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 06-05-2004
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K SAROHA
• Assessee Lawyers: LALITHA KRISHNAMURTHY
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Block assessment

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C , NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT (SS) A NO. 174 /DEL/20 04 AY: 1996 - 97 TO 2002 - 03 (UPTO 1.10.2001) SH.RAVI SYAL VS. ACIT, C.C. 9 CHIRAG ENCLAVE NEW DELHI NEW DELHI PAN: AIYPS 5147 G/R - 10 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MS.LALITHA KRISHNAMURTHY, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SH. AK SAROHA, CIT, D.R. ORDER PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, A CCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 19.2.2004 OF LD.CIT(A) - II, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO THE BLOCK PERIOD A.Y. 1996 - 97 TO 2002 - 03 (UPTO 01.10.2001) , ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) - II HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,35,000/ - U/S 69A OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. (THE ACT.). 2. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) - II HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,20,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED JEWELLE RY. 3. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) - II HAS ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 4. THAT WHILE CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS, THE LD.CIT(A) - II HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND JUDICIALLY AND PASSED THE ORDER IN HURRI EDLY MANNER WHICH WAS NOT WARRANTED IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE INDULGENCE OF YOUR HONOUR TO MOVE ADDITIONAL GROUND AT LATER STAGE. IT (SS) A NO. 174/DEL/2004, SH. RAVI SYAL, NEW DELHI 2 1 . 1 . THE ASSESSEE FILED AN ADDITIONAL GROUND WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS. ( 1 ) THE NOTICE U/S 158 BC OF THE ACT, SUFFERS FROM A JURISDICTIONAL ERROR AND BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 158 BC, MADE IN THE FURTHERANCE OF SUCH INVALID ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION IS NULL AND VOID IN THE ABSENCE OF A VALID AND PROPERLY AUTHORIZED SEARCH, AS PRESCRIBED IN S.132(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. ( 2 ) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NULL AND VOID ON ACCOUNT OF NON ADHERENCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF S.158 BE OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 2 . THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THIS IS A LEGAL GROUN D PERTAINING TO LIMITATION AND DOES NOT REQUIRE INVESTIGATION OF FRESH FACTS AS ALL THE DOCUMENTS ARE ON RECORD AND HENCE HAS TO BE ADMITTED AS PER THE PROPOSITIONS LAID DOWN IN THE JUDGEMENT OF HON BLE SUPREME COURT I N THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO.L TD. (NTPC LTD.) VS. CIT REPORTED IN 229 ITR 383 (S.C.) AND OTHER JUDGEMENTS. THE LD.D.R. STRONGLY OPPOSED THESE SUBMISSIONS AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE WAS NEVER RAISED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND HENCE THE ADDITIONAL GROUND SHOULD NOT BE ADMIT TED. 3. ON HEARING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT THESE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS ARE ON JURISDICTIONAL AND LIMITATION ISSUES AND DO NOT REQUIRE ANY FACTUAL VERIFICATION. ALL FACTS ARE ON RECORD. 3. 1 . RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PROPOSITIONS LAID DOWN BY THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF N.T.P.C.LTD. (SUPRA), WE ADMIT THESE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 4 . WE HAVE HEARD SH.AK SAROHA, LD.CIT, D.R. ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND MS.LALITHA KRISHNAMURTHY, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. IT (SS) A NO. 174/DEL/2004, SH. RAVI SYAL, NEW DELHI 3 5. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PERUSAL OF ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES, MATERIAL ON RECORD, CASE LAW CITED , WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS. 6. A PERUSAL OF THE PANCHANAMA DRAWN ON 31.8.2008 DEMONSTRATES THAT THE SEARCH HAS BEEN FINA LLY CONCLUDED AT 3.55 AM ON 31.8.2001. THIS FACT IS CLEAR FROM PARAGRAPH 8 OF THE P A NCHANAMA. MOREOVER IN THE NOTICE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE FOR FILING OF A RETURN U/S 158 BC OF THE ACT ON 13.8.2002 IS FROM PREVIOUS YEAR ENDING 31.3.96 TO P.Y. ENDING 31.3 .2001 AND FROM 1.4.2001 TO 30.8.2001. THE NOTICE CLEARLY STATES THAT THE BLOCK PERIOD AS DEFINED IN S.158B(4) OF THE ACT IS RELATING TO A.Y. 1996 - 97 TO 2002 - 03 (UPTO 30.8.2001). IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE PERIOD IS EXTENDED UPTO 1.10.2010. THIS TRAVELS BEYOND THE PERIOD OF THE NOTICE ISSUED AND THE FACT NOTED IN THE PANCHANAMA AS TO THE FINAL CONCLUSION OF SEARCH. ON THESE FACTS WE HAVE NO HESITATION TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 158 BC ON 10.10.2003 IS BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION AS MANDATED U/S 158 BE(1) OF THE ACT. THE LD.DR RELIED ON THE PANCHANAMA DRAWN ON 1.10.2001. IN THIS PANCHANAMA IT IS STATED THAT THE SEARCH IN QUESTION, IS A CONTINUATION OF THE SEARCH , WHICH WAS FINALLY CONCLUDED ON 31.8.2010. FROM THE RECORD INGS AT PARA 8 OF THE PANCHANAMA DT. 31.8.2008, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE SEARCH HAS BEEN FINALLY CONCLUDED AT THE TIME ON THAT TIME AND HENCE THE SUBSEQUENT PANCHANAMA DRAWN ON 10.10.2003 WHICH RECORDED THE FACTS OTHERWISE CANNOT BE HELD TO BE CORRECT. RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LD.DR. ON CERTAIN CASE LAWS HAVE NO RELEVANCE AS IT IS A CLEAR CASE OF THE ASSESSMENT BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION. THUS WE UPHOLD THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOW THIS IT (SS) A NO. 174/DEL/2004, SH. RAVI SYAL, NEW DELHI 4 GROUND. ALL THE OTHER ISSUES ARE NOT ADJUDICATED AS IT W OULD BE AN ACADEMIC EXERCISE. 7 . IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH MARCH, 2016 . SD/ - SD/ - ( H.S. SIDHU ) (J.SUDHAKAR REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: THE 17 TH MARCH, 2016 * MANGA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT; 2.RESPONDENT; 3.CIT; 4.CIT(A); 5.DR; 6.GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR