| COURT: |
|
| CORAM: |
|
| SECTION(S): |
|
| GENRE: |
|
| CATCH WORDS: |
|
| COUNSEL: |
|
| DATE: |
(Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: |
January 1, 2009 (Date of publication) |
| AY: |
|
| FILE: |
|
| CITATION: |
|
|
|
Extension of time limit for completion of block assessment order by making new panchnamas.
HELD in the context of s. 158BE (1) (b) which imposes a time limit for making a block assessment order with reference to the date of execution of the last of the authorizations for search u/s 132 which in turn is deemed to be the date of the conclusion of search as recorded in the last panchnama drawn that:
(i) a search is essentially an invasion of the privacy of the person whose property or person is subjected to search;
(ii) normally, a search must be continuous;
(iii) if it cannot be continuous for some plausible reason, the hiatus in the search must be explained;
(iv) if no cogent or plausible reason is shown for the hiatus in the search, the second or “resumed” search would be illegal;
(v) by merely mentioning in the panchnama that a search has been temporarily suspended does not, ipso facto, continue the search. It would have to be seen as a fact as to whether the search continued or had concluded;
(vi) merely because a panchnama is drawn up on a particular date, it does not mean that a search was conducted and/or concluded on that date;
(vii) the panchnama must be a record of a search or seizure for it to qualify as the panchnama mentioned in Explanation 2(a) to section 158BE of the said Act.
See Also: CIT vs. Plastika Enterprises (Bom) where the panchnama was found to have been made only to get over the limitation issue.
Related Posts:
- Bently Nevada LLC vs. ITO (Delhi High Court) The Court accordingly finds that in the present case the impugned withholding certificate which directs TDS to be deducted at 5% on the payments made by the Indian entities to the Petitioner is unsustainable in law, inasmuch as it is not based on valid reasons and is contrary to the…
- Paradigm Geophysical Pty Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) If the nature of services rendered have a proximate nexus with the extraction of production of mineral oils, it would be outside the ambit of the definition of FTS. In the instant case, since the nature of services rendered by the Petitioner gets excluded from the definition of “FTS”, in…
- Suman Poddar vs. ITO (Delhi High Court) The AO has worked out the glaring facts, which cannot be ignored and which are clear indicative of the non-genuine nature of the transactions. The assessee could not satisfactorily explain how the investments in the absence of any evidence as to the financials, growth and operations of the company could…
- Experion Developers Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court) Whilst it is the settled position in law that the sanctioning authority is required to apply his mind and the grant of approval must not be made in a mechanical manner, however, as noted by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Prem Chand Shaw (Jaiswal) v Assistant…
- RDS Project Limited vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court) It is true that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had required the assessee to disclose information pertaining to the share applicants, the amounts and their source, the mode in which payment was made and confirmatory letters together with PAN details. But it is also trite…
- Indus Towers Ltd vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court) Considering the fact that the petitioner has invoked the discretionary extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner was expected to approach this Court with clean hands, which, unfortunately, we find is completely lacking in the present case. We are, therefore, not inclined to exercise our discretionary writ jurisdiction in…
Recent Comments