| COURT: | Delhi High Court |
| CORAM: | Pratibha M. Singh J, S. Muralidhar J |
| SECTION(S): | 153A, 153C, 158B |
| GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
| CATCH WORDS: | limitation period, Search assessment |
| COUNSEL: | Shaswat Bajpai |
| DATE: | July 17, 2017 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | July 19, 2017 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | 2001-02 |
| FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
| CITATION: | |
| S. 153B(2)(a): Merely visiting the premises on the pretext of concluding the search but not actually finding anything new for being seized cannot give rise to a second panchnama so as to extend the limitation period for passing the s. 153A assessment order. In such event, there would be no occasion to draw up a panchnama at all. The visit and the panchnama drawn up on that date cannot lead to postponement of the period for completion of assessment with reference to s. 153B (2) (a) of the Act | |
The Court is not prepared to accept the plea of the Revenue that merely because a panchnama was drawn up on 15th May, 2007 showing that the search was ‘finally concluded’ on that date, it postponed the period of limitation in terms of Section 153B (2) (a) of the Act. It had to be the “last panchnama drawn in relation to any person in whose case the warrant of authorization has been issued”. The last panchnama, no doubt, is dated 15th May, 2007 but what it records is the seizure of the jewellery items not of any of the persons searched but the wives of one of the directors i.e., of Ms. Neena Jain who was not even a director of any of these entities. Therefore, even assuming that the jewellery of Ms. Neena Jain was seized under panchnama of 15th May, 2007, as far as the searched entities are concerned, the Revenue cannot take advantage of Section 153B (2) (a) to contend that the period of limitation in respect of them stands extended for completing of assessment up to 31st December, 2009
Recent Comments