Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(a) the block period is statutory defined;

(b) the assessee had participated in the block proceedings pursuant to the issue of notice under Section 158BC of the Act.

The Special Bench decision aforesaid, therefore, supports the case of the assessee rather than being viewed as against the assessee.

99. He further submitted that the observation of the Karnataka High Court in the case of B.M. Reddy v. Asstt. CIT to the effect that the machinery for passing the assessment orders in search cases commences with search itself is, in our respectful submission, not in accordance with the scheme of the Act and the judgments of the Courts where a distinction has been made between jurisdiction to assess and jurisdiction to make an order of assessment. The said observation has been made without analyzing the scheme of assessment under Chapter XIV-B of the Act and is also in direct conflict with the decisions of the Delhi High Court in the cases of N.K. Parwanda (supra) and Dr. K.C. Verma (supra).

Taylor Instrument Co. (I) Ltd. v. CIT (;

CIT v. Thana Electricity Supply Ltd. ;

Consolidated Pneumatic Tool Co. (India) Ltd. v. CIT ;

Patil Vijay kumar v. Union of India ;

Dr. T.P. Kapadia v. CIT .

103. It was also stated that the decision of the jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the cases of H.K. Parwanda (supra) and Dr. K.C. Verma (supra) and the Special Bench of Tribunal in Motorola Inc. (supra) clearly apply and are binding on this Hon'ble Bench.

104. Finally he concluded by saying that on the basis of the aforesaid, it is emphatically submitted that the question referred to this Hon'ble Bench must be answered in favour of the appellant to hold that the defect in the notice issued under Section 158BC of the Act giving less than 15 days to the assessee to file the return affects the validity of the assessment, leading to annulment thereof.