Shri Pradeep M. Dalvi, THANE V. ACIT Circle 23(3),

ITSSA 362/MUM/2004

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3806 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 14 year(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 08-06-2004
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V JUSTIN
• Assessee Lawyers: M N NANDGAONKAR
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Period of limitation; Retrospective amendment; Block assessment; Time period of passing order
• Section: 143(3); 132; 12; 10; 2; 11; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH E , MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER IT (SS) NO. 362/MUM/2004 (A.Y: 1989 - 90 TO 1999 - 2000) SHRI PRADEEP M. DALVI , 219, SAI VIHAR, SHIVAJI PATH, KALYAN (W), MUMBAI 421 301 PAN NO: AA QPD 1740 E V. A SST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE 23(3), 6 TH FLOOR, C - 12, PRATYAKSHKAR BHAVAN, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI 400 051. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) IT (SS) NO. 371/MUM/2004 (A.Y: 1989 - 90 TO 1999 - 2000) ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 23(3), 6 TH FLOOR, C - 12, PRATYAKSHKAR BHAVAN, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI 400 051. V. SHRI PRADEEP M. DALVI PROP OF M/S. P.M. DALVI & CO. 219, SAI VIHAR, SHIVAJI PATH, KALYAN (W), PIN: 421 301 PAN NO: AAQPD 1740 E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.N. NANDGAONKAR REVENUE BY : SHRI V. JUSTIN DATE OF HEARING : 22.06 .2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27 .06 .2018 2 IT (SS) NO S . 362 & 371 /MUM/2004 SHRI PRADEEP M. DALVI O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) 23 MUMBAI DATED 23.03.2004 FOR THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT YEARS 1989 - 9 0 AND 1999 - 2000 ARISING OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 158BC OF THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS APPEAL APART FROM CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED U/S. 158BC R.W. 143(3) AS PASSED BEYOND THE LIMITATION PERIOD AS PROVIDED IN SECTIO N 158BE OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE ABINITIO VOID AND BAD IN LAW ALSO CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN SUSTAINING VARIOUS ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES. THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN GRANTING CERTAIN RELIEF BY PARTLY DE LETING THE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN SUSTAINING THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 158BC ON LIMITATION , WE FIRST TAKE UP THIS GROUND FOR ADJUDICATION. 4. LE ARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THREE DIFFERENT AUTHORIZATIONS FOR SEARCH WERE ISSUED AND THE FIRST ONE IS DATED 10.06.1998 BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE INCOME - TAX (INVESTIGATIONS), MUMBAI TO 3 IT (SS) NO S . 362 & 371 /MUM/2004 SHRI PRADEEP M. DALVI SEARCH THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE . THE SE COND ONE I S DATED 11.06.1998 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE INCOME - TAX (INVESTIGATION), UNIT - 2, MUMBAI TO SEARCH THE OFFICE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AT SAI VIHAR, KALYAN AND THE THIRD ONE IS DATED 12.06.1998 AGAIN ISSUED BY DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE IN COME - TAX (INVESTIGATION), KALYAN TO SEARCH VARIOUS LOCKERS IN VARIOUS BANKS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE FIRST AND SECOND AUTHORIZATIONS DATED 10.06.1998 AND 11.06.1998 WERE EXECUTED ON 11.06.1998 AND FINALLY CONCLUD ED THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS ON 15.07.1998 BY DRAWING LAST PANCHANAMAS REVOKING THE PROHIBITORY ORDERS PASSED U/S. 132(3) OF THE ACT ON EARLIER OCCASIONS . IT WAS CONTENDED THAT ON 15.07.1998 NO SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED AT EITHER OF THE TWO PLACES VISITED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICERS I.E. RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN ALGUJ, KALYAN AND OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEE AT SAI VIHAR, KALYAN. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT IN BOTH THESE PLACES PROHIBITORY ORDERS WERE REVOKED AND PANCHANAMAS WERE DRAWN RECORDING THAT THE SEARCHES WERE FIN ALLY CONCLUDED. HOWEVER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT FOUR FIXED DEPOSIT RECEIPTS AS P ER ANNEXURE O OF THE PANCHANAMA DATED 15.07.1998 WHICH WAS PLACED AT PAPER BOOK AT PAGE NO. 27 , WERE SEIZED AT THE PREMISES SITUATED AT 219/8 - 19/29 SAI VIHAR, KALYAN OF THE ASSESSEE. REFERRING TO THE PAGE NO. 21 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH IS THE PANCHANAMA DATED 12.06.1998 , IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THE FIXED DEPOSIT RECEIPTS 4 IT (SS) NO S . 362 & 371 /MUM/2004 SHRI PRADEEP M. DALVI WHICH WERE SEIZED ON 15.07 .1998 WERE ACTUALLY FOUND ON 11.06.1998 AS PER ANNEXURE 2 OF THE PANCHANAMA BUT THEY WERE NOT SEIZED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEE SITUATED AT 219/8 - 19/29 SAI VIHAR, KALYAN ON THAT DATE I.E. 11.06.1998 . 5. FINALLY, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE LAST OF THE AU THORIZATIONS I.E. AUTHORIZATION DATED 12.06.1998 WAS EXECUTED ON 12.06.1998 AND 14.06.1998 AND THE SEARCHES RELATED TO THESE AUTHORIZATIONS WAS FINALLY CONCLUDED ON 17.06.1998 AND 23.06.1998 BY DRAWING LAST PANCHANAMA AND THEREFORE THE LIMITATION FOR THE C OMPLETION OF THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT U/S.158BC IS REQUIRED TO BE CALCULATED AS STIPULATED IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BE OF THE ACT FROM 23.06.1998 . REFERRING TO SECTION 158BE(1)(B) OF THE ACT THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT , WHERE THE SE ARCH IS INITIATED ON OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY OF JANUARY 1997 THE ORDER U/S. 158BC SHALL BE PASSED WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE LAST OF THE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR SEARCH U/S. 132 WAS EXECUTED. THEREFORE, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED THAT IN ASSESSEES CASE THE LAST AUTHORIZATION DATED 12.06.1998 WAS ISSUED BY DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION), KALYAN AND PURSUANT TO SUCH LAST AUTHORIZATION THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS WERE FINALLY CONCLUDED ON 23.06.1998 VIDE PANCHANAMA D ATED 23.06.1998 , THEREFORE THE LIMITATION FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT U/S. 158BC SHALL START FROM THE END OF THE 5 IT (SS) NO S . 362 & 371 /MUM/2004 SHRI PRADEEP M. DALVI MONTH FROM THE LAST PANCHANAMA OF THE LAST AUTHORIZATION I.E. FROM 30.06.1998 AND ENDS ON 30.06.2000. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 31 ST JULY, 2000 IT IS BEYOND THE TIME PRESCRIBED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BE OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE, ABINITIO VOID AND BAD IN LAW. THE LD. COUNSEL IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS P LACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGEMENTS. (1) C. RAMAIAH REDDY V. ACIT [ 244 CTR 126 (KAR)]. (2) PROMAIN LTD. V. DCIT [95 TTJ 825 (DEL)(SPECIAL BENCH)]. (3) ACIT V. SHREE RAM LIME PRODUCTS P. LTD. [ 147 TTJ 121 (JD)(SPECIAL BENCH)] (4) SHAHRUKH KHAN V. ACIT [107 TTJ 252 (MUM)] (5) DR. OSWAL ANTONY V. CIT [192 CTR 363 (PAT)] (6) CIT V. RAMESHCHAND SONI [194 CTR 84 (RAJ)] 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V . SANDHYA P. NAIK [178 CTR 448 (BOM)], SUBMITTED THAT THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER CANNOT KEEP THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS IN OPERATION BY PASSING THE RESTRAINT ORDER U/S. 132(3) BY SIMPLY STATING IN THE PANCHANAMA THAT THE SEARCH IS TEMPORARILY SUSPENDED AND THE RES TRAINT ORDER CANNOT BE CANCELLED AND RENEWED FROM TIME TO TIME. FURTHER, IT ALSO CONTENDED THAT ACTION U/S. 132(3) OF THE ACT CAN BE RESORTED TO ONLY IF THERE IS ANY PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IN SEIZING THE MATERIAL AND WHEN THERE IS NO DIFFICULTY IN SEIZING THE MATERIALS, THE OFFICER IS LEFT WITH NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE TO SEIZE THE MATERIALS IF IN HIS VIEW IT REPRESENTED UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE LD. 6 IT (SS) NO S . 362 & 371 /MUM/2004 SHRI PRADEEP M. DALVI COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN HIS CASE THE PANCHANAMAS RECORDED ON 15.07.1998 FINALLY CO NCLUDING THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO FIRST AND SECOND AUTHORIZATIONS DATED 10.06.1998 AND 11.06.1998 ARE MADE ONLY TO PROLONG THE PROCEEDINGS AS THERE IS NO SEIZURE OF ANY MATERIAL IN RESPECT OF FIRST AUTHORIZATION WHERE THE SEARCH IS CONDUCTED IN R ESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN SO FAR AS THE OFFICE PREMISES OF SAI VIHAR, KALYAN IS CONCERNED IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE FIXED DEPOSITS WHICH WERE SEIZED ON 15.07.1998 PURSUANT TO SECOND AUTHORIZATION IS ALSO CARRIED OUT ONLY TO PROLONG THE PROC EEDINGS BECAUSE THESE FIXED DEPOSIT RECEIPTS WERE FOUND WHEN THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS FIRST EXECUTED ON 11.06.1998 ITSELF AND PROCEEDINGS ON THE DAY WERE TEMPORARILY CLOSED BY PASSING RESTRAINT ORDER U/S. 132(3) WITHOUT SEIZING THE FIXED DEPOSIT RECEIPTS. 7. LD . COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO REASO N / EXPLANATION AS TO WHY TH ESE FIXED D EPOSIT RECEIPTS WERE NOT SEIZED ON 11.06.1998 WHEN THE SECOND AUTHORIZATION WAS FIRST EXECUTED AND THERE WAS ALS O NO EXPLANATION AS TO WHY THE F IXED D EPOSIT R ECEIPTS ARE NOT SEIZED WHEN THE PREMISES WAS AGAIN SEARCHED ON 19.06.1998 AND PANCHANAMA WAS DRAWN AGAIN CONCLUDING THE PROCEEDINGS TEMPORARILY BY PASSING THE RESTRAINT ORDER. THEREFORE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE SEARCH PURPORTEDLY TAKEN PLACE ON 15.07.1998 PURSUANT TO FIRST AND SECOND 7 IT (SS) NO S . 362 & 371 /MUM/2004 SHRI PRADEEP M. DALVI AUTHORIZATIONS WITH NO SEIZED MATERIALS IN THE CASE PURSUANT TO FIRST AUTHORIZATION AND WITH SEIZURE OF F IXED D EPOSIT RECEIPTS PURSUANT TO SECO ND AUTHORIZATION ON 15.07.1998 IS ONLY TO PROLONG THE PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT CONCLUDING AND THEREFOR E IN EFFECT THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS WERE ACTUALLY CONCLUDED ON 11.06.1998 WHEN THERE WAS SEIZURE HAPPENED PURSUANT TO FIRST AUTHORIZATION AND ON 11.06.1998 AND 19.06.1998 IN THE CASE OF SECOND AUTHORIZATION AS THERE WERE CERTAIN SEIZ ED MATERIAL TOOK PLACE AND NOT CONCLUDED ON 15.07.1998. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT PRACTICALLY THERE WAS NO SEARCH PROCEEDINGS HAPPENED ON 15.07.1998 BUT IT WAS THE PROCEEDING CARRIED OUT FOR REMOVAL OF PROHIBITORY ORDERS PA SSED U/S. 132(3) OF THE ACT AND FOR CONCLUDING THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS : - (1) CIT V. PLASTICA ENTERPRISE [23 DTR 333 (BOM.)]. (2) CIT V. S.K. KATYAL [2 21 CTR 310 (DEL.)]. (3) A. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN V. JCIT [254 CTR 576 (MAD.)]. (4) RAKESH SAREEN V. DCIT [240 CTR 56 (MAD.)]. (5) CIT V. SARB CONSULATE MARINE PRODUCTS P. LTD. [294 ITR 444 (DEL.)]. (6) CIT V. DEEPAK AGARWAL [ 308 ITR 0116 (DEL.)]. (7) CIT V. RAJHANS AROMATICS [33 6 ITR 68 (DEL.)]. (8) CIT V. OMPAKASH MANDORA [262 CTR 646 (RAJ.)]. (9) R. SHIVAKUMAR V. ACIT [18 TAXMANN.COM 26 (KER.)]. (10) CIT V. D. D. AXLES P. LTD. [323 ITR 558 (DEL.)]. (11) T.S. CHANDRASHEKHAR V. ACIT [66 TTJ 360 (BANG.)]. (12) NANDLAL M. GANDHI V. ACIT [118 TTJ 289 (MUM)(TM)]. (13) DCIT V. M/S. N.H. SECURITIES LTD IN ITA.NO. 115/MUM/2004 & 137/MUM/2004 DATED 18.05.2016. (14) SHRI RAJENDRA AGARWAL V. DCIT IN ITSS 05/MUM/2004 DATED 15.09.2016 (15) MR. VINIT V PRABHU AND OTHERS V. DCIT IN ITA.NO. 515/MUM/2014 DATED 19.12.2013. (16) ACIT V. LALIT KUMAR NAGPAL IN ITSS NO.185/MUM/2006 DATED 18.05.2012. 8 IT (SS) NO S . 362 & 371 /MUM/2004 SHRI PRADEEP M. DALVI 8. LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. REFERRING TO PANCHANAMA DATED 15.07.1998 WHICH WAS EXECUTED IN THE OFFICE PREMISES OF THE AS SESSEE NAMELY SAI VIHAR, KALYAN, LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS SEIZUR E OF FIXED D EPOSIT RECEIPTS AND THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS WERE ALSO FINALLY CONCLUDED ON 15.07.1998 BY EXECUTING THE AUTHORIZATION DATED 10.06.1998 AND THEREFORE SINCE THIS IS THE LAST PANCHANAMA DRAWN EXECUTING THE WARRANT ISS UED ON 10.06.1998 THE LIMITATION PERIOD SHOULD START FROM 31 ST JULY, 1998 AND ENDS ON 31 ST JULY, 2000 AND SINCE THE ASSESSMENT U/S.158BC OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED ON 31 ST JULY, 2000 THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED IS WITHIN THE LIMITATION PERIOD AS SPECIFIED U/S15 8BE OF THE ACT. LD. DR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. ANIL MINDA [235 CTR 1] TO STRESS HIS POINT THAT THE LIMITATION PERIOD STARTS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE LAST PANCHANAMA IS EXECUTED AG AINST ANY WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATION, NOT ONLY THE LAST WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATION. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE CASE LAWS RELIED ON. THE LD. CIT(A) REJECTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSMENT IS TIME BARRED FOR THE REASON THAT ON 15.07.1998 ONE OF THE AUTHORIZATION WAS EXECUTED BY RECORDING THE PANCHANAMA AND SOME OF THE MATERIALS WERE SEIZED ON THAT DAY AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED WITHIN THE LIMITATION 9 IT (SS) NO S . 362 & 371 /MUM/2004 SHRI PRADEEP M. DALVI PERIOD I.E. 31 S T JULY, 2000 BEING WITHIN THE TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH THE AUTHORIZATION WAS EXECUTED. WE HAVE PERUSED THE THREE AUTHORIZATIONS ISSUED ON 10.06.1998, 11.06.1998 AND 12.06.1998 BY THE DIRECTOR / DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) WHER E SEARCH WAS CONCLUDED IN THE RESIDENTIAL AND OFFICE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND ON VARIOUS LOCKERS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE IN VARIOUS BANKS. WE ALSO PERUSED VARIOUS PANCHANAMAS RECORDED PURSUANT TO ALL THE THREE AUTHORIZATIONS. 10. IN RESPECT OF THE FIRST AUTH ORIZATION DATED 10.06.1998 WHERE THERE WAS A SEARCH IN THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS EXECUTED ON 11.06.1998 AND PANCHANAMA WAS DRAWN RECORDING SEIZURE OF CERTAIN MATERIALS. THE SEARCH WAS COMMENCED AT 8:30 AM AND PROCEEDS WERE CLOSED AT 8:30 PM TEMPORARILY CONCLUDING THE PROCEEDINGS AND THE STEEL CUPBOARD INSIDE THE WOODEN CUPBOARD KEPT IN THE BED ROOM OF SMT MALTI M.DALVI WAS PLACED UNDER SEAL. PROHIBITORY ORDERS U/S.132(3) WAS PASSED IN RESPECT OF THE SEALED PREMISES. SUBSEQUENTLY ON 17.03.1998 THERE WAS A SEARCH AGAINST THE WARRANT DATED 10.06.1998 IN THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND A PANCHANAMA WAS DRAWN ON 17.06.1998 AND CERTAIN MATERIALS WERE SEIZED. THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED AT 5:30 PM AND CONC LUDED TEMPORARILY AT 6:00 PM AND THE STEEL CUPBOARD INSIDE THE WOODEN CUPBOARD KEPT IN THE BED ROOM OF SMT MALTI M.DALVI WAS ONCE AGAIN 10 IT (SS) NO S . 362 & 371 /MUM/2004 SHRI PRADEEP M. DALVI PLACED UNDER SEAL. PROHIBITORY ORDERS U/S. 132(3) WERE ONCE AGAIN PASSED. NOTHING HAS BEEN SEIZED ON THIS DAY I.E. ON 17.06.1998. SUBSEQUENTLY ON 15.07.1998 SEARCH PROCEEDINGS WERE CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO AUTHORIZATION DATED 10.06.1998 IN THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND F INALLY CONCLUD ED THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS REVOKING THE PROHIBITORY ORDERS . T HE PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED AT 11:45AM AND CONCLUDED AT 12:00 NOON. NOTHING HAS BEEN SEIZED ON THIS DAY. 11. SECOND AUTHORIZATION DATED 11.06.1998 WHICH WAS ISSUED FOR THE SEARCH IN THE OFFICE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AT SAI VIHAR, KALYAN WAS FIRST EXECUTED ON 11.06.1998 AND A PANCHANAMA WAS DRAWN ON 12.06.1998 AND CERTAIN MATERIALS WERE SEIZED. PROCEEDINGS WERE COMMENCED AT 03:30 PM AND CONCLUDED TEMPORARILY AT 4:00 PM . PROHIBITORY ORDERS U/S.132(3) WERE PASSED PLACING THE ENTIRE PLACE I.E. ROOM NO. 29, FIRST FLOOR SAI VIHAR, KALYAN UNDER SEAL. SUBSEQUENTLY ON 19.06.1998 AGAIN SEARCH PROCEEDINGS WERE CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO AUTHORIZATION DATED 11.06.1998 WHERE CERTAIN MATERIALS WERE SEIZED. THE PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED AT 11:25 AM AND TEMPORARILY CONCLUDED AT 06:00 PM. THE PROHIBITORY ORDER S U/S. 132(3) WERE PASSED PLACING THE LOCKER OF A STEEL CUPBOARD IN THE PREMISES AT 18/19 SAI VIHAR, KALYAN UNDER SEAL. FINALLY, ONCE AGAIN THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS WERE CARRIED OUT ON 15.07.1998 FROM 12:30 PM TO 01:00 PM AND FINALLY CONCL UDED THE SEARCH 11 IT (SS) NO S . 362 & 371 /MUM/2004 SHRI PRADEEP M. DALVI PRO CEEDINGS. IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS FOUR FIXED DEPOSIT RECEIPTS AS PER THE ANNEXURE O WAS SEIZED. 12. THIRD AUTHORIZATION DATED 12.06.1998 WAS ISSUED TO SEARCH VARIOUS LOCKERS IN VARIOUS BANKS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE AND SEARCH PRO CEEDINGS WERE CARRIED OUT ON 12.06.1998 TO VERIFY THE LOCKERS IN BANK OF INDIA, SHAMRAO VITHAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., THE THANE JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., KALYAN. PROCEEDINGS WERE TEMPORARILY CONCLUDED BY PASSING PROHIBITORY ORDERS U/S. 132(3) OF THE ACT. AGAIN ON 17.06.1998 THERE WAS A SEARCH PURSUANT TO THIRD AUTHORIZATION DATED 12.06.1998 TO VERIFY THE LOCKERS IN SHAMRAO VITHAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., AND BANK OF INDIA, KALYAN AND THE PROCEEDINGS WERE FINALLY CONCLUDED WITHOUT ANY SEIZURE OF MATERIALS. FINALLY SEARCH PROCEEDINGS TOOK PLACE ON 23.06.1998 PURSUANT TO THE THIRD AUTHORIZATION DATED 23.06.1998 IN THE PREMISES OF THE THANE JANATA SAHAKARI BANK, KALYAN TO VERIFY THE LOCKER NO. 368 AND THE PROCEEDINGS WERE CONCLUDED WITHOUT ANY SEIZURE OF ANY M ATERIAL. THEREFORE, AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE FACTS IN RESPECT OF FIRST AND SECOND AUTHORIZATION DATED 10 .06.1998 & 11.06.1998 THE SEARCH WAS FI NALLY CONCLUDED ON 15. 07.1998 AND IN RESPECT OF THE THIRD AUTHORIZATION DATED 12.06.1998 THE PROCEEDINGS WERE FINALLY CONCLUDED ON 23.06.1998 BY DRAWING THE PANCHANAMAS. 12 IT (SS) NO S . 362 & 371 /MUM/2004 SHRI PRADEEP M. DALVI 13. IN RESPECT OF THE FIRST AUTHORIZATION THOUGH THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS WERE FINALLY EXECUTED ON 15.07.1998 NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN SEIZED. HOWEVER, IN RESPECT OF THE SECOND AUTHORIZATION WHEN THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS W ERE CONCLUDED ON 15.07.1998 FIXED D EPOSIT RECEIPTS WERE SEIZED. HERE WE OBSERVE THAT WHEN THE SECOND AUTHORIZATION WAS EXECUTED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON 11.06.1998 THE SEARCH PARTY FOUND THESE FOUR FIXED DEPOSIT RECEIPTS IN THE OFFICE PRE MISES OF THE ASSESSEE. BUT THEY WERE NOT SEIZED AND THERE IS NO REASON ALSO AS TO WHY THEY WERE NOT SEIZED. HOWEVER, WHEN THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS WERE CONCLUDED ON 15.07.1998 THESE FIXED DEPOSIT RECEIPTS WERE SEIZED. THE THIRD AND LAST AUTHORIZATION DATE D 12.06.1998 WAS FIN ALLY EXECUTED ON 23.06.1998 BY DRAWING LAST PANCHANAMA AND CONCLUDED THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, NOW WE HAVE TO DECIDE AS TO WHETHER THE PANCHANAMAS DRAWN ON 15.07.1998 PURSUANT TO FIRST AND SECOND AUT HORIZATIONS DATED 10.06.1998 AND 11.06.1998 SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS THE LAST PANCHANAMAS OR THE PANCHANAMA DRAWN ON 23.06.1998 PURSUANT TO THE THIRD AND LAST AUTHORIZATION DATED 12.06.1998 SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS THE LAST PANCHANAMA FOR THE PURPOSE OF REC KON ING THE LIMITATION PERIOD FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT U/S. 158BC OF THE ACT READ WITH PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BE OF THE ACT. HERE WE WOULD LIKE TO EXTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BE(1)(B) AND EXPLANATION 2 WHICH ARE RELEVANT PROVISION TO 13 IT (SS) NO S . 362 & 371 /MUM/2004 SHRI PRADEEP M. DALVI DECIDE THE LIMITATION FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT IN ASSESSEE CASE AND THE SAME IS AS UNDER: 158 BE (1) THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 158 BC SHALL BE PASSED (A) . . (B) WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE LAST OF THE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OR FOR REQUISITION UNDER SECTION 132A, AS THE CASE MAY BE, WAS EXECUTED IN CASES WHERE A SEARCH IS INITIATED OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ANY ASSETS ARE REQUISITIONED ON OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY OF JANUARY, 1997. EXPLANATION 2: FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HEREBY DECLARED THAT THE AUTHORISATION REFERRED TO IN SUB - SECTION (1) SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN EXECUTED: (A) IN THE CASE OF SEARCH, ON THE CONCLUSION OF SEARCH AS RECORDED IN THE LAST PANCHNAMA DRAWN IN RELATION TO ANY PERSON IN WHOSE CASE THE WARRANT OF AUTHORISATION HAS BEEN ISSUED; (B) IN THE CASE OF REQUISITION UNDER SECTION 132A, ON THE ACTUAL RECEIPT OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER. 14. AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE SUB - CLAUSE (B) OF SECTION 158BE (1) THE TIME LIMIT FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT U/S. 158BC SHALL BE WITHIN THE TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE LAST OF THE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE SEARCH U/S. 132 WAS EXECUTED WHERE SEARCH IS INITIATED ON OR AFTER 1 ST DAY OF JANUARY 1997. IN THE CASE ON HAND THE SEARCH IS INITIATED AFTER 1 ST DAY OF JANUARY 1998 BY ISSUE OF AUTHORIZATION FOR SEARCH ON 10.06.1998, 11.06.1998 AND 12.06.1998 AS EXPLAINED ABOVE. THE LAST OF THE AUTHORIZATION I.E. THIRD AUTHORIZATION D ATED 12.06.1998 WAS EXECUTED BY DRAWING LAST PANCHANAMA ON 23.06.1998. THEREFORE, THE LIMITATION PERIOD SHALL START FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE LAST OF THE AUTHORIZATIONS WAS EXECUTED. IN THIS CASE THE LAST OF THE AUTHORIZATION DATED 12.06.199 8 14 IT (SS) NO S . 362 & 371 /MUM/2004 SHRI PRADEEP M. DALVI WHICH WAS FINALLY CONCLUDED BY DRAWING LAST PANCHANAMA ON 23.06.1998 AND THE LIMITATION PERIOD SHALL START FROM 30 TH JUNE, 1998 AND ENDS ON 30 TH JUNE, 2000 AND SINCE THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 31.07.2000 THE SAME IS BARRED BY LIMITATION IN VIE W OF THE FOLLOWING . 15. IN THE CASE OF PROMAIN LTD. V. DCIT (SUPRA) THE DELHI SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HELD AS UNDER: 74. THE THIRD AND PERHAPS THE LAST STAGE COMES AT THE TIME OF COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE PERIOD OF LIMI TATION UNDER S : 158BE. THIS SECTION PROVIDES THAT ASSESSMENT UNDER S. 158BC HAS TO BE MADE WITHIN ONE YEAR OR TWO YEARS, AS THE CASE MAY BE, FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH LAST OF THE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR THE SEARCH UNDER S. 132 WAS EXECUTED. THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL AS AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY, CAN ALSO EXAMINE AS TO WHEN THE LAST OF THE AUTHORIZATIONS WAS EXECUT ED. A SEARCH CAN BE SAID TO BE EXECUTED WHEN IT IS CONCLUDED IN TERMS OF S. 132. THE ACTIONS OF THE SEARCH PARTY ARE ENUMERATED IN CLS. (I) TO (V) OF S. 132(1), I.E., SEARCHING OF PREMISES MENTIONED IN THE AUTHORIZATION, PLACING MARKS OF IDENTIFICATION, P REPARATION OF INVENTORY, SEIZURE OF ANYTHING FOUND, ETC. THE SECOND PROVISO TO S. 132(1) PROVIDES POWER TO THE SEARCH PARTY.TO ISSUE RESTRAINT ORDER UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES MENTIONED IN THE PROVISO. SUB - S. (3) EMPOWERS THE SEARCH PARTY TO ISSUE PROHIBITORY ORDER UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES MENTIONED IN THIS SUB - SECTION. SUB - S. (4) EMPOWERS THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER TO RECORD THE STATEMENT OF ANY PERSON WHO IS FOUND TO POSSESS OR TO HAVE CONTROL OF THE ITEMS MENTIONED THEREIN: FINALLY, THE PANCHANAMA HAS TO BE PREP ARED WHICH CAN BE CONSIDERED AS AN EVIDENCE FOR CONCLUDING THE SEARCH. THOUGH THERE IS NO SPECIFIC MENTION OF PREPARATION OF PANCHANAMA IN S. 132, IT CAN BE LOGICALLY INFERRED FROM EXPLN. 1 AFTER S. 132(14). THIS EXPLANATION PROVIDES THAT 'EXECUTION OF AN AUTHORIZATION FOR SEARCH' SHALL HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS ASSIGNED TO IT IN EXPLN. 2 TO S. 158BE. THE LATTER EXPLANATION PROVIDES THAT AUTHORIZATION OF SEARCH SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN EXECUTED WHEN THE LAST PANCHANAMA IS DRAWN IN RELATION TO A PERSON IN WHOSE CASE WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATION IS ISSUED. THE ABOVE DISCUSSION SHOWS THAT SEARCH COMES TO AN END WHEN THE LAST PANCHANAMA` IS DRAWN WITH REFERENCE TO THE LAST OF THE AUTHORIZATIONS. IT IS THE DATE OF SUCH PANCHANAMA WHICH IS RELEVANT FOR DETERMINING THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR PASSING THE ORDER UNDER S. 158BC BY A.O. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO IS REQUIRED TO FIND OUT THE DATE WHEN THE LAST PANCHANAMA WITH REFERENCE TO LAST AUTHORIZATION IS DRAWN AND NOTHING BEYOND THAT. THE EXAMIN ATION OF THE CONDUCT OF SEARCH PARTY INCLUDING THE ISSUING OF RESTRAINT ORDER/PROHIBITORY ORDER IS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF THE AO AND CONSEQUENTLY, OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL CAN EXAMINE THE RECORD ONLY WITH A V IEW TO FIND OUT THE DATE OF LAST PANCHANAMA. 16. IN THE CASE OF SHAHRUKH KHAN V . ACIT (SUPRA) THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERED THE LIMITATION PERIOD WITH REFERENCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION 158BE(1)(A) R EAD WITH EXPLANATION 2 AND HELD 15 IT (SS) NO S . 362 & 371 /MUM/2004 SHRI PRADEEP M. DALVI THAT THE REFERENCE TO THE LAST PANCHANAMA GIVEN IN THE EXPLANATION 2 SHALL BE WITH REFERENCE TO THE LAST OF THE AUTHORIZATIONS BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 18. FROM BARE READING OF S. 158BE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE CONCLUDED UNDER S. 158BC, IN CASES WHERE THE SEARCH IS INITIATED AFTER 30TH JUNE, 1996 BUT BEFORE 1ST JUNE, 1997, WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE LAST OF THE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR THE SEARCH UNDER S. 132 WAS EXECUTED. THE EXPLN. 2 TO S. 158BE WAS INSERTED BY THE FI NANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 1998 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1ST JULY, 1995, WHICH MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE AUTHORIZATION REFERRED TO SUB - S. (1) OF S. 158BE SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN EXECUTED ON THE CONCLUSION OF SEARCH AS RECORDED IN THE LAST PANCHNAMA DRAWN IN RELATION TO ANY PERSON IN WHOSE CASE THE WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATION HAS BEEN ISSUED. THE SAID EXPLANATION IS WITH REGARD TO AUTHORIZATION REFERRED TO IN SUB - S. (1) WHICH REFERS TO LAST OF THE AUTHORIZATIONS, WHICH MEANS THAT THE LAST OF THE PANCHNAMA HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN RESPECT OF LAST OF THE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR SEARCH, AS THERE COULD BE MORE THAN ONE PANCHNAMA IN RESPECT OF SAME AUTHORIZATION. THE CRUX OF THE MATTER REMAINS THAT THE LIMITATION SHALL START FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH LAST OF THE AUTHORIZATIONS IS EXECUTED. 17. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THE SEARCH CONCLUDED BY RECORDING PANCHANAMA ON 15.07.1998 IN RESPECT OF THE AUTHORIZATION DATED 10.06.1998 AND 11.06.1998 CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS THE LAST PANCHANAMA FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECKONING T HE LIMITATION PERIOD. AS THERE WAS NO SEIZURE OF ANY MATERIAL WITH REFERENCE TO THE FIRST AUTHORIZATION DATED 10.06.1998 WHEN SEARCH WAS CONCLUDED ON 15.07.1998 . WITH REFERENCE TO THE SECOND AUTHORIZATION DATED 11.06.1998 THE F IXED D EPOSIT RECEIPTS WHICH WERE ALREADY FOUND BY THE SEARCH PARTY WHEN THE WARRANT WAS EXECUTED ON 11.06.1998 AND INVENTORI SED WERE NOT SEIZED ON 11.06.1998 BUT WERE FINALLY WHEN THE SEARCH WAS CONCLUDED ON 15.07.1998 THEY WERE SEIZED. WE ALSO FIND THAT SEARCH PROCEEDINGS WITH REF ERENCE TO THE SECOND AUTHORIZATION WERE ALSO CONCLUDED ON 19.06.1998 16 IT (SS) NO S . 362 & 371 /MUM/2004 SHRI PRADEEP M. DALVI WHERE THE FLOPPY WAS RECOVERED AND SEIZED AND WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND AS TO WHY THESE FIXED D EPOSIT RECEIPTS WERE NOT SEIZED EVEN ON 19.06.1998 BUT WAS SEIZED ONLY WHEN THE PROCEEDINGS WERE FINALLY CONCLUDED ON 15.07.1998. THIS MEANS IN EFFECTIVELY THE SEARCH WAS ALREADY CONCLUDED AT LEAST BY 19.06.1998 IF NOT ON 11.06.1998 BUT CERTAINLY NOT ON 15.07.1998. THE SEARCH CONDUCTED ON 15.07.1998 APPEARS TO BE AN ATTEMPT TO PROLONG THE PROCEEDIN GS WITHOUT ANY REASON. 18. IN THE CASE OF CIT V . SANDHYA P. NAIK (SUPRA) THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER: - 'BY SIMPLY STATING IN PANCHANAMA THAT THE SEARCH IS TEMPORARILY SUSPENDED, THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER CANNOT KEEP THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS IN OPERATION BY PASSING A RESTRAINT ORDER U/S 132(3).' 'THE RESTRAINT ORDER IN VIEW OF THIS AUTHORITY CANNOT BE CANCELLED AND RENEWED FROM TIME TO TIME. ACTION U/S. 132(3) OF THE IT ACT CAN BE RESORTED TO ONLY IF THERE IS ANY PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IN SEIZING THE ITEM WHICH IS LIABLE TO BE SEIZED. WHEN THERE IS NO PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY THE OFFICER IS LEFT WITH NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE BUT TO SEIZE THE ITEM, IF HE IS OF THE VIEW THAT IT REPRESENTED UNDISCLOSED INCOME.' 19. IN THE CAS E OF CIT V. PLASTICA ENTERPRISE (SUPRA) THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER: SEARCH HAVING BEING COMPLETED ON 05 TH AUGUST 2000 AND PANCHANAMA SEIZING STOCK PREPARED ON THAT DATE, SUBSEQUENT PANCHANAMA DATED 20 TH SEPTEMBER 2000 ON WHIC H DATE THE AUTHORITIES ONLY INSPECTED THE SEAL SEEMED TO HAVE BEEN PREPARED ONLY TO GET OVER THE LIMITATION ISSUE, HENCE APPEAL OF REVENUE AGAINST ORDER OF TRIBUNAL HOLDING BLOCK ASSESSMENT AS BARRED BY LIMITATION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE ' 20. IN THE CASE OF C. RA MAIAH REDDY V. ACIT (SUPRA) THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER: SEC. 158 BE PRESCRIBES THE TIME - LIMIT FOR COMPLETION OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT. ACCORDING TO THE SAID SECTION THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION IS ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE LAST OF THE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR SEARCH UNDER S. 132 WAS 17 IT (SS) NO S . 362 & 371 /MUM/2004 SHRI PRADEEP M. DALVI EXECUTED. THEREFORE , IT IMPLIES THERE COULD BE MORE THAN ONE AUTHORIZATIONS UNDER S. 132(1). IF THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE AUTHORIZATIONS THE STARTING OF LIMITATION IS TO BE COMPUTED FROM THE LAST OF THE AUTHORIZATIONS. EXPLANATION 2 TO SUB - S. (2) 158BE EXPLAINS WHEN 'AUTHORIZA TION' IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN EXECUTED. THE AUTHORIZATION TO IN SUB - S. (1) SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN EXECUTED IN THE CASE OF SEARCH ON THE CONCLUSION OF SEARCH AS RECORDED IN THE LAST PANCHNAMA DRAWN IN RELATION TO ANY PERSON IN WHOSE CASE THE WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATION HAS BEEN ISSUED. IF THE AUTHORIZATIONS ARE EXECUTED AND SEARCH IS CONDUCTED ON DIFFERENT DATES, THERE WILL BE PANCHNAMAS ON DIFFERENT DATES. A DOUBT MAY ARISE REGARDING THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE DAY FROM WHICH LIMITATION IS TO BE COMPUTED. IN ORDER TO REMOVE THE SAID DOUBT EXPLN. 2 WAS ADDED BY FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 1998 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1ST JULY. 1995. THE EXPRESSION USED IS 'LAST PANCHNAMA' AND NOT 'LAST OF THE PANCHNAMAS'. THEREFORE, THERE CANNOT BE PLURALITY OF PANCHNAMAS IN RE SPECT OF THE AUTHORIZATION. THIS INTENTION COULD BE GATHERED FROM THE WORD 'LAST OF THE AUTHORIZATIONS' USED IN THE MAIN SECTION. THE WORD IS 'PANCHNAMA' AND NOT PANCHNAMAS. THEREFORE, IF THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE AUTHORIZATION, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE DATE OF S UCH AUTHORIZATION, IT IS THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF THE SAID AUTHORIZATION, WHICH IS TO BE RECKONED, AS EVIDENCED BY THE PANCHNAMA AND CONCLUSION OF SEARCH AS RECORDED IN THE LAST PANCHNAMA DRAWN IN RELATION TO THE WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATION ISSUED. IT DOES NO T IMPLY THAT THERE CAN BE MORE THAN ONE PANCHNAMA IN RESPECT OF ONE AUTHORIZATION. IF THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE AUTHORIZATION, IT IS THE LAST OF THE AUTHORIZATIONS, WHICH HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECKONING LIMITATION. IT IS NOT T HE DATE OF ISSUE OF SUCH LAST AUTHORIZATION. BUT IT IS THE DATE ON WHICH THE SAID AUTHORIZATION IS EXECUTED. THE PROOF OF SUCH EXECUTION OF AN AUTHORIZATION IS THE DRAWING UP OF A PANCHNAMA. IT IS THE LAST PANCHNAMA DRAWN IN RELATION TO AN AUTHORIZATION IS SUED IS RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. THE LEGISLATURE ADVISEDLY HAS NOT REFERRED TO EITHER THE DATE OF ISSUE OF AUTHORIZATION, OR THE DATE OF EXECUTION OR THE DATE OF DRAWING OF PANCHNAMA AS THE DATE ON WHICH THE LIMITATIO N STARTS. THE STARTING POINT OF LIMITATION IS THE END OF THE MONTH' IN WHICH THE LAST OF THE AUTHORIZATIONS IS EXECUTED AS RECORDED IN THE LAST PANCHNAMA. THEREFORE, THE DATE OF THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE LIMITATION IS DEFINITE. DEPENDING UPON THE CALENDAR M ONTH, IT MAY BE 28TH OR 29TH IF THE MONTH IS FEBRUARY. 30TH OR 31ST, DEPENDING ON OF DAYS IN THE MONTH. WHAT IS TO BE RECORDED IN THE PANCHNAMA IS THAT THE SEARCH IS CONCLUDED AND NOT THAT IT WAS THE LAST SEARCH BECAUSE THE PANCHAS OF THE SUBSEQUENT PANCHN AMA MAY NOT BE AWARE OF ANY EARLIER PANCHNAMA AS THEY MAY NOT BE THE PANCHAS WHO WITNESS THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE ON THAT DATE. ONCE SUCH CONCLUSION OF SEARCH IS RECORDED, IT IS PROOF OF EXECUTION OF THE WARRANT OF AUTHORISATION. IT IS THE LAST PANCHNAMA REC ORDING CONCLUSION OF SEARCH, IF THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE AUTHORISATION AND MORE THAN ONE PANCHNAMA IN RELATION TO SUCH AUTHORIZATION, WHICH IS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE LIMITATION. 21. IN THE CASE OF CIT V. DEEPAK AGARWAL (SUPRA) THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT AFTER CONSIDERING THE JUDGMENTS IN THE CASE OF DR. C. BALKRISHNA NAIR [237 ITR 70 (KER.)], CIT V. MRS. SANDHYA P. NAIK [253 ITR 534 (BOM)] AND 18 IT (SS) NO S . 362 & 371 /MUM/2004 SHRI PRADEEP M. DALVI CIT V. SARAB CONSULATE MARINE PRODUCTS P. LTD., [294 ITR 444 (DEL.)] HELD AS UNDER: - THE TRIBUNAL HAS COME TO A CONCLUSION OF FACT THAT THE SECOND PURPORTED SEARCH ON 23.12.2000 WAS NOT A SEARCH AT ALL AND ALL THAT WAS REQUIRED TO BE SEARCHED AND SEIZED HAD BEEN CONCLUDED ON 31.10.2000 ITSELF. IN FACT, THERE IS NO EXPLANATION FORTHCOMING FROM THE REVENUE AS TO WHAT TRANSPIRED FROM 31.10.2000 TO 23.12.2000 SO AS TO ENABLE US TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW THAN WHAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN. 22. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WE HOLD THAT THE PANCHANAMAS RECORDED ON 15.07.1998 PURSUANT T O THE FIRST AND SECOND AUTHORIZATIONS DATED 10.06.1998 AND 11.06.1998 CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS LAST PANCHANAMAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECKONING THE LIMITATION PERIOD FOR COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 158BC OF THE ACT. AT THE SAME TIME, WE HOLD THAT , SINCE LAST OF THE AUTHORIZATION S I.E. AUTHORIZATION DATED 12.06.1998 WAS EXECUTED ON 12.06.1998 , 14.06.1998 AND FINALLY CONCLUDED THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS BY DRAWING LAST PANCHANAMA ON 23.06.1998 THE TIME LIMIT FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT STARTS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH OF RECORDING THIS PANCHANAMA I.E. FROM 30.06.1998 AND ENDS ON 30.06.2000. HOWEVER, IN THE CASE ON HAND SINCE THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT WAS COM PLETED U/S. 158BC OF THE ACT ON 31 ST JULY, 2000 , THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BEYOND THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BE OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE, ABINITIO VOID AND BAD IN LAW. HENCE WE QUASH THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PASSED U/S 158BC OF THE ACT AS 19 IT (SS) NO S . 362 & 371 /MUM/2004 SHRI PRADEEP M. DALVI NULL AND VOID. GROUND NO.1 OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 23. SINCE WE HAVE HELD THAT THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT IS NULL AND VOID THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE ON DISALLOWANCES/ADDITIONS MADE IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENTS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE ADJUDICATED AS THEY ARE ONLY ACADEMIC. HENCE THE GROUNDS ARE DISPOSED OFF ACCORDINGLY. 24. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONO UNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 27 TH JUNE , 2018 . SD/ - SD/ - ( G.S. PANNU ) (C.N. PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI / DATED 27/ 06 / 2018 GIRIDHAR , SPS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER, (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUM BAI