Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Shree Pashupati Nath Jee Tours And ... on 28 January, 2007
Equivalent citations: (2007)108TTJ(DELHI)830
ORDER
Deepak R. Shah, A.M.
1. This appeal by the Revenue and cross-objection by the assessee are directed against the order of the learned CIT (A)-I, New Delhi, dt. 28th June, 2004 in an appeal against order under Section 158BC of the IT Act (the Act).
2. Whereas the Revenue challenges the deletion of addition made in the block assessment, in the cross-objection, the assessee challenges the validity of the assessment order on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. The assessee is also challenging levy of surcharge as well as interest under Section 158BFA(1).
3. We shall first deal with the cross-objection whereby the assessee challenges the validity of assessment and whether the same is barred by limitation. A search was conducted by issue of warrant in the name of the assessee dt. 16th Nov., 2000. The search was carried out on 17th Nov., 2000 and it was temporarily concluded on 18th Nov., 2000 after placing certain material under the prohibitory order. The search was continued and was finally concluded on 12th Dec, 2000 at 5.45 PM as per Panchnama dt. 12th Dec, 2000. The prohibitory order under Section 132(3) was revoked on 12th Dec, 2000. The assessment was completed on 13th Jan., 2003. It is the contention of the assessee that since the search was originally conducted on 17th Nov., 2000 and since there was no reason to impose any prohibitory order, the limitation should commence from 17th Nov., 2000 itself. Thus, the assessment should have been completed on or before 30th Nov., 2002. For this purpose, he relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shri S.K. Katyal v. Dy. CIT in [IT(SS)A No. 302/Del/2004, dt. 14th Nov., 2006]. The same decision is rendered in the context of same search wherein the assessee is one of the partners of the appellant firm. Shri Taneja further submitted that even if it is to be held that the search was not concluded on 17th Nov., 2000, as per Panchnama dt. 12th Dec, 2000, search was finally concluded on 12th Dec, 2000 itself. Thus, in such a case the assessment should have been completed on or before 31st Dec, 2000. The assessment so made on 30th Jan., 2003 is therefore barred by limitation.
4. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied upon the appellate order. He submitted that as per the letter of the assessee itself, which is at p. 323 of the paper book, another Panchnama was prepared on 3rd Jan., 2001. Thus, the time-limit will be two years from the end of the month in which the last Panchnama was drawn. Thus, the time-limit is available upto 31st Jan., 2003 and hence the assessment made on 30th Jan., 2003 is within limitation period. He also invited our attention to the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Writ Petn. No. 4685 of 2000, dt. 15th Dec, 2006, wherein it was held that time-limit would begin from the date of the last Panchnama as per Expln. 2 to Section 158BE of the IT Act.
5. We have considered the relevant facts and the decisions cited. In the present case, it is not in dispute that as per the Panchnama dt. 12th Dec, 2000, the search is stated to be finally concluded at 5.45 PM on 12th Dec, 2000. The so-called Panchnama dt. 3rd Jan., 2001 as mentioned in the written submissions filed before the learned CIT(A) is in the name of Shri Pashupati Tours & Travels Ltd., whereas the present assessment concerns Shri Pashupati Nathji Tours & Travels, a partnership firm. This Panchnama is dt. 17th Nov., 2000, 12th Dec, 2000 and 3rd Jan., 2001 as supplied by the assessee are kept on record. We therefore, hold that since as specifically mentioned in Panchnama dt. 12th Dec, 2000 that the search was finally concluded on 12th Dec, 2000 itself and since the same is the last Panchnama, so far as the appellant before us is concerned, the time-limit commences from the date of such last Panchnama. Accordingly, as per Section 158BE(1) r/w Expln. 2 thereto, the assessment shall be framed within two years from the end of the month in which last Panchnama was drawn. Accordingly, the assessment should have been completed on or before 31st Dec, 2002. Since the present assessment has been framed on 30th Jan., 2003, the same is barred by limitation. The decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court will not help the case of Revenue in the sense that since admittedly the last of the Panchnama was drawn on 12th Dec, 2000, the assessment should have been completed on or before 31st Dec, 2002. No authority including any Court of law has any power to extend such time-limit. We accordingly hold that the assessment is barred by limitation and hence is nullity. The assessment is accordingly annulled.
6. Since we have annulled the assessment on the ground that the same is barred by limitation, the other grounds raised by the assessee in cross-objection or by the Revenue in its appeal are not required to be disposed of.
7. In the result, the cross-objection is partly allowed and the appeal is dismissed.