M/s. Shree Mahalaxmi Jewellers,, Pune v. DCIT Cir. 1(2),, Pune

ITA 1395/PUN/2005 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 139524514 RSA 2005
Assessee PAN LLERS1741K
Bench Pune
Appeal Number ITA 1395/PUN/2005
Duration Of Justice 6 year(s) 1 month(s) 12 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Shree Mahalaxmi Jewellers,, Pune
Respondent DCIT Cir. 1(2),, Pune
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 15-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 15-07-2011
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 03-06-2005
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A PUNE BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO AM I.T.A. NO. 1395/PN/2005 (BLOCK PERIOD 1988-89 TO 19 98-99) M/S. MAHALAXMI JEWELLERS 1741 K.S. KEDARI ROAD PUNE PAN AAHFS 114 G APPELLANT VS. VS. DY. CIT CIR. 2 PUNE RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.K. KULKARNI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI HARESHWAR SHARMA ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO AM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF CIT(A)-II PUNE DATED 31-3-2005 FOR THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT YEAR 1988- 89 TO 1998-99. ASSESSEE FILED THE NINE CONCISE GROUNDS BEFORE US AND THEY A RE OF BOTH LEGAL AND MERITS RELATED ONES IN NATURE. AT THE OUT SET ON LEGAL GR OUNDS LD COUNSEL MENTIONED THAT THE AO FAILED TO PASS THE ORDER BEYOND THE TIM E LIMIT OF TWO YEARS PROVIDED IN SECTION 58BE OF THE ACT. FOR THIS ASSESSEE WANT S THE WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATION R W RELEVANT PANCHANAMA DATED 15.12. 1998 WHICH RESULTED IN THE SEIZURE O F DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE THE LAST PANCHANAMA DRAWN FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE COMPUTATION OF THE TIME LIMIT AND CERTAINLY NOT THE ONE DATED 13.1.1999 AS DONE BY THE AO. IN THAT CASE THE IMPUGNED BLOCK ASSESSM ENT ORDER IS INVALID. LD COUNSEL ALSO RAISED BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS T HE OTHER LEGAL ISSUE CONNECTED TO THE WARRANT OF AUTHORISATION AND MENTI ONED THAT THE NAME MENTIONED IN THE IMPUGNED WARRANT IS SUFFIXED BY TH E EXPRESSIONS AND OTHERS WHICH REFERS TO THE STATUS OF AOP OR BOI AND CERTAI NLY NOT THE ASSESSEE FIRM. FURTHER HE MENTIONED THAT THESE ISSUES WERE THOROU GHLY DEALT WITH BY THE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN GROUP CASES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED THE COPIES OF THE ORDERS IN THE CASES OF (I) SHRI B ABULAL F. SONI IN ITA NO. 768/PN/2004 FOR THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT 1988-89 TO 199 8-99 DATED 19-1-2011 AND (II) JETHMAL F. SONI IN ITA NO. 748/PN/2006 DATED 1 0-8-2010. LD COUNSEL ARGUED STATING THAT THE LEGAL ISSUES RAISED IN THE GROUNDS AND THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS ARE COVERED BY THE ELABORATE DISCUSSION GIVEN IN THE SA ID ORDERS OF THIS TRIBUNAL. ON THE OTHER HAND LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF T HE REVENUE. FURTHER HE RELIED ON THE LANGUAGE OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS AND MENT IONED THAT THAT THE ACT OF SEIZURE DOES NOT DETERMINE WHAT CONSTITUTES THE LAST PANCHANAMA DRAWN. 2 ITA NO. 1395/PN/05 MAHALAXMI JEWELLERS BLOCK PERIOD: 1988-89 TO 1998-99 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE SAID O RDER IN THE CASE OF SHRI BABULAL F. SONI (SUPRA). FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY T HE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SAID ORDER IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE MENT IONED THAT THE LEGAL ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS IDENTICAL TO THE ONE DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF JETHMAL F. SONI IN ITA NO. 748/PN/2006. IN SHORT LD. COUNSEL MENTIONED THAT THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESS EE RELATES TO WHETHER BLOCK ASSESSMENT IS MADE VALIDLY AND WITHIN THE PER MITTED TIME OR NOT. IN THIS REGARD LD. COUNSEL TOOK US THROUGH IMPORTANT PARAGRAPHS OF OUR ORDER DATED 10-8-2010 IN THE ABOVE REFERRED APPEAL. ON FINDING THAT THE FACTS ARE COMPARABLE THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF JETHMAL F. SONI HAS AN APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF INSTANT CASE. THEREFORE AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED V IEW THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OR ADDITIONAL GROUNDS SHOULD BE REFERRED TO THE FILES OF THE A .O FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE STRICTLY IN ACCO RDANCE WITH OUR ORDER DATED 10-8-2010 IN THE CASE OF JETHMAL F. SONI ( SUPRA). THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FILE A COPY OF THE SAID ORDER BEFORE TH E A.O AND EXPLAIN AS TO HOW THE FACTS ARE HOMOLOGOUS AND THE SAID DECISION IS APPLICABLE TO THE IMPUGNED APPEAL. A.O IS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE HOMOLO GY OF FACTS AND DECIDE THE ISSUE STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR DE CISION IN THE CASE OF JETHMAL F. SONI (SUPRA). 3. THE A.O SHALL GRANT REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF B EING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. ACCORDINGLY MATTER IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF A.O. 4. FURTHER WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF THIS BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF JETHMAL F. SONI (SUPRA). PARA 7 TO 15 OF THE SAID O RDER DISCUSSED THE RELEVANT ISSUES BOTH ON THE LIMITATION VIS A VIS THE ACT OF SEIZURE IN THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS VIS A VIS THE LAST PANCHANAMA DRAWN AS WELL AS ON T HE ASSESSEE SPECIFIC NATURE OF THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. IN THE PROCESS WE HAVE ANA LYSED THE LOCUS STANDI OF THE EXPRESSIONS SUCH AS AND OTHERS APPEARING ON THE W ARRENTS. RELEVANT PARAGRAPHS OF THE SAID ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER FOR READY REFERENCE. THEY ARE: 7. FURTHER LD COUNSEL FILED A LETTER DATED 29.7.20 10 STATING THAT THE LEGAL ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS REACHED FINALITY AT T HE LEVEL OF THE SUPREME COURT (321 ITR 165 (ST) VIDE THE SLP FILED BY THE R EVENUE IN THE CASE OF JUDGMENT OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DEEPAK AGARWAL (308 ITR 116) FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE COMPLETED WITH IN TWO YEARS AND THE PURPORTED SEARCH AFTER A GAP OF 53 DA YS WAS NOT A SEARCH AT ALL. FURTHER REFERRING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158 BE AND THE EXPLANATION 2(A) LD COUNSEL ARGUED THAT THE EXPRESSION LAST PANCHAN AMA DRAWN SHOULD MEAN A VALID PANCHANAMA AND NOT THE ONE DRAWN BY THE REV ENUE WITH THE VIEW TO BUY MORE TIME WHICH IS NOT MEANT BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND NOT INTENDED BY THE LEGISLATURE. IN THIS REGARD MR KUL KARNI FILED A COMPILATION OF THE CITATIONS TO SUPPORT HIS ARGUMENTS. 3 ITA NO. 1395/PN/05 MAHALAXMI JEWELLERS BLOCK PERIOD: 1988-89 TO 1998-99 8. ON THE OTHER HAND LD DR FOR THE REVENUE HEAVIL Y RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). FURTHER HE HIGHLIGHTED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS PARTNER OF THE FIRM AND HE IS COVERED BY THE EXPRES SION OTHERS APPEARING IN THE WOA DRAWN IN THE NAME OF THE FIRM. HE ALSO RELI ED ON THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT WHICH IS REPRODUCED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS OF THIS ORDER. FURTHER SRI R. KAUSHAL L D CIT DR STATED THAT THE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE BOTH THE FIRM AND ITS PARTN ERS ARE COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132 OF THE ACT A GROUP APPRO ACH IS NECESSARY IN MATTERS OF INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AND THE CITATIONS RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL. IN BRIEF THE CASE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE EXISTENCE OF AN EXPRESSION OTHERS ON THE WOA/PANCHANAMA DRAWN IN THE NAME OF THE FIRM COVERS OF THE NAME OF THE A SSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE IS PARTNER OF THE SAID FIRM TOO. THEREFORE THE DATE O F CLOSURE OF THE SEARCH IN THE NAME OF THE FIRM SHOULD BE THE DATE OF FINAL CONCLUSION OF THE SEAR CH IN THE CASE OF ITS PARTNER TOO. FURTHER THE CASE OF THE R EVENUE IS THAT SO LONG AS THE SEARCH ON THE FIRM IS IN PROGRESS THE SEARCH IN TH E CASE OF THE PARTNER OF THAT FIRM CANNOT BE CONCLUDED AND THEREFORE THE CONCLUS ION REPORTED VIDE THE PANCHANAMA DATED 24 TH DECEMBER IS NOT TO BE RECKONED WITH. PER CONTRA T HE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE SEARCH IS ALWAYS PERSON SPECIFIC AND THE PERSON IS DEFINED IN SECTION 2(31) OF THE ACT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE ASSESSEE-INDIVIDUAL IS SEARCHED BY A WARRANT OF AUT HORIZATION (WOA) AND THE SAID SEARCH IS EFFECTIVELY CONCLUDED ON 8 TH DECEMBER AND FORMALLY AND FINALLY CONCLUDED ON 24.12.1998 AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 158BE READ WITH ITS EXPLANATION 2(A) THE ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE COMPLETE D WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE LAST OF THE AUTHO RIZATIONS FOR SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132WAS EXECUTED IN CASES WHERE A SEARCH IS INITIATED . THEREFORE AS PER THE ASSESSEE THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT SHOULD HAV E BEEN COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE 31.12.2000 AND NOT ON 31.1.2001 AS DONE BY T HE AO IN THIS CASE. 10. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE RIVAL POSITIONS WE H AVE PERUSED THE FINDING OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DEEPAK AGARWAL (SU PRA) AND THE REPORTED PORTION FROM THE SAID JUDGMENT READ AS FOLLOWS. BLOCK ASSESSMENT : LIMITATION FROM DATE OF LAST PANCHANAMA (9-7-2009): THEIR LORDSHIPS S.H.KAPADIA AND AFTAB ALAM JJ. DISM ISSED THE DEPARTMENTS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION AGAINST THE JUD GMENT DATE AUGUST 12 2008 OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN I.T.A. NO. 953 OF 2008 R EPORTED IN 308 ITR 116 WHEREBY THE HIGH COURT FOLLOWING 294 ITR 444 AFFIRM ED THE VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION BECAUSE THE GAP BETWEEN THE SEARCH AND THE PURPORTED LAST S EARCH WAS APPROXIMATELY 53 DAYS FOR WHICH THERE WAS NO EXPLANATION AND THE REVOCATION ORDER DID NOT GIVE AN INDICATION THAT TH E PROHIBITORY ORDER WAS PASSED MERELY FOR CONTINUING THE SEARCH POSSIBLY FO R THE PURPOSES OF EXTENDING THE LIMITATION. THE TRIBUNAL HAD COME TO A CONCLUSION OF FACT THAT THE SECOND PURPORTED SEARCH WAS NOT A SEARCH AT ALL AND ALL THAT WAS REQUIRED TO BE SEARCH AND SEIZED HAD BEEN CONCLUDED ON THE EARLIER DATE ITSELF : CIT V. DEEPAK AGARWAL : S.L.P (C) NO. 16360 OF 20 09. 11. FURTHER WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED OTHER CITATIONS O F THE ISSUE OF VALID PANCHANAMA REFERRED TO IN THE CLAUSE (A) OF THE CLA RIFICATORY EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 158BE OF THE ACT. SOME OF THE CONCLUSIONS O F THE SAID CITATION ARE NARRATED HERE FOR READY REFERENCE. THEY ARE: A. CIT VS. SARB CONSULATE MARINE PRODUCTS (P) LTD. 29 4 ITR 444 (DELHI). 4 ITA NO. 1395/PN/05 MAHALAXMI JEWELLERS BLOCK PERIOD: 1988-89 TO 1998-99 CONCLUSION : SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS STOOD CONCLUDED AG AINST THE ASSESSEE ON 6 TH NOV. 1996 WHEN SOME DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED AND A PANCHNAMA WAS DRAWN AND NOT ON 14 TH SEPT. 1998 WHEN ANOTHER PANCHNAMA WAS DRAWN WITHOUT ANY SEIZURE BUT ONLY A RESTRAINT ORDER UNDER S. 132(3) WHICH ALSO WAS NOT VALID AND THEREFORE LIMI TATION STARTED FROM 6 TH NOV. 1996 AND ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON 30 TH SEPT. 1998 WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION. B. CIT VS. MRS. SANDHYA P. NAIK 253 ITR 534 (2002)(BO M): CONCLUSION: WHEN THE SEARCH WAS CONCLUDED ON 20 TH OCT. 1996 ITSELF THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH A SECOND RESTRA INT ORDER UNDER S. 132(3) WAS PASSED IN RESPECT OF SEALED CUPBOARD COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF EXECUTION OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS WHICH HAD ALREADY C ONCLUDED AND THEREFORE THE IMPUGNED BLOCK ASSESSMENT MADE ON 31 ST DEC. 1997 I.E. AFTER 31 ST OCT. 1997 WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION AND ALSO INVALID. C. B.K. NOWLAKHA VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 192 ITR 436 (1991)(DEL): CONCLUSION: ORDER UNDER S. 132(3) CAN BE PASSED ONLY WHERE IT I S NOT PRACTICABLE TO SEIZE GOODS FOR REASONS OTHER THAN T HOSE MENTIONED IN SECOND PROVISO TO S. 132(1) AND NOT TO CIRCUMVENT PROVISIO NS OF S. 132(1). D. DEPUTY CIT VS. ADOLF PATRIC PINTO 100 ITD 191 (MUM): CONCLUSION: IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LAST AU THORISATION WAS EXECUTED ON 19 TH JUNE 1998 WHEN SCRIPS WERE SEIZED AND ON ORDER UN DER S. 132(3) WAS PASSED AND NOT ON 1 ST AUG. 1998 WHEN THEY WERE RELEASED AND THUS BLOCK ASSESSMENT COMPLETED ON 28 TH AUG. 2000 WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION UNDER S. 158BE. E. CIT & ANR. VS. T.S. CHANDRASHEKAR THRO LRS. 22 1 CTR (KAR) 385 (2009) CONCLUSION: SEARCH OF ASSESSEES OFFICE AND BUSINESS PREMISES C ONDUCTED ON 12 TH DEC. 1995 SAME CONCLUDED ON THAT VERY DAY CASH SEIZED PROHIBITORY ORDER PASSED AND PANCHNAMA DRAWN WAS THE LAST PANCH NAMA EVIDENCING CONCLUSION OF SEARCH FOR PURPOSES OF LIMITATION UN DER S. 158BE AND NOT PANCHNAMAS DRAWN ON FURTHER SEARCHES CONDUCTED ON 1 9 TH JAN. 1996 7 TH FEB. 1996 AND 12 TH FEB. 1996 ON WHICH DATES NO SEIZURE TOOK PLACE. F. CIT VS. DEEPAK AGGARWAL 308 ITR 116 (2009) (DEL ) CONCLUSION: PROHIBITORY ORDER UNDER S. 132(3) PASSED ON 31 ST OCT. 2000 MERELY FOR CONTINUING THE SEARCH POSSIBLY FOR THE P URPOSE OF EXTENDING THE LIMITATION TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE SEARCH STOOD CONCLUDED ON 31 ST OCT. 2000 ITSELF AND NOT ON 23 RD DEC. 2000 AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON 27 TH DEC. 2002 WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION UNDER S. 158BE. G. CIT VS. KUWER INDUSTRIES LTD. 191 CTR 413 (2004 )(DEL) CONCLUSION: SEARCH HAVING BEEN CONCLUDED ON 21 ST MARCH 1996 AS PER PANCHNAMA DT. 20 TH MARCH 1996 THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON 30 TH JUNE 1997 WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION; ANOTHER PANCHNAMA SA ID TO HAVE BEEN MADE SUBSEQUENTLY ON 27 TH FEB. 1997 WHICH WAS NEITHER CONSIDERED BY THE A.O NOR BY THE TRIBUNAL AND WAS NOT PART OF RECORD CANNOT B E RELIED UPON. H. NANDLAL M. GANDHI VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ITAT MUMBAI E THIRD MEMBER BENCH (2008) 13 DTR (MUM) (TM ) ( TRIB) 35 CONCLUSION : ASSESSEES PREMISES HAVING BEEN COMPLETELY SEARCHE D ON 29 TH JULY 1997 WHEN ASSETS WERE INVENTORISED AND PANCH NAMA PREPARED LIMITATION UNDER S. 158BE WOULD BE RECKONED QUA 29 TH JULY 1997 AND NOT QUA 5 ITA NO. 1395/PN/05 MAHALAXMI JEWELLERS BLOCK PERIOD: 1988-89 TO 1998-99 8 TH SEPT. 1997 WHEN PROHIBITORY ORDER IN RESPECT OF S HARES WAS REVOKED AND SECOND PANCHNAMA WAS PREPARED AS THE SECOND PANCHNA MA COULD NOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN PREPARED IN PURSUANCE TO WARRANT OF AU THORIZATION HENCE BLOCK ASSESSMENT MADE ON 30 TH SEPT. 1999 WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION. 12. FACTUALLY THE SEARCH ON THE ASSESSEE WAS COMME NCED ON 8 TH DECEMBER AND THE SAME WAS TEMPORARILY CONCLUDED ON THE SAME DATE. ON THIS DATE A PROHIBITORY ORDERS WAS CLAMPED ON THE ASSESSEES PR EMISES VIDE THE ORDER DATED 8 TH DECEMBER 1998. SUBSEQUENTLY THE SEARCH WAS FINALL Y CONCLUDED ON 24 TH DECEMBER 1998 AS SEEN FROM THE PANCHANAMA ANNEXED TO THE APPEAL MEMO. THERE IS NO DETAILS ON THE REVOKING OF THE SA ID PO ON 24 TH DECEMBER 1998. ON THIS DATE THE REVENUE REGISTERED THE EVEN TS OF SEIZURE OF BUNDLE OF PAPERS (ANNEX C) AND RECORDING OF A STATEMENT OF TH E ASSESSEE BEFORE FINALLY CONCLUDING THE SEARCH AT 5.40 PM. NOTHING IS MENTIO NED ABOUT THE PO AS SEEN FROM THE ITEM NO 9 OF THE PANCHANAMA DATED 24 TH DECEMBER 1998. THERE IS NO EXPLANATION OF THE REVENUE AS TO THE EFFECT OF T HE SAID PO WHETHER IT IS STILL IN FORCE BEYOND 24 TH DECEMBER 1998 OR NOT. REVENUE TAKES THE VIEW THAT THIS UNREVOKED PO CLAMPED ON 8 TH DECEMBER SHOULD NOT BE DEEMED LIFTED TILL THE GROUP SEARCHES ARE FINALLY CONCLUDED. IT TAKES THE STRENGTH FROM THE EXPRESSION OTHERS MENTIONED IN THE WOA/ PANCHANAM A IN THE CASE OF THE FIRM. 13. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR ATTENTION TO THIS ARGUMENT OF THE REVENUE AND FIND THIS ARGUMENT IS VERY GENERAL IN NATURE. WITH THE USE OF EXPRESSIONS SUCH AS OTHERS A PERSON CANNOT BE SEARCHED. THERE IS A D EFINED PROCEDURE IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132 OF THE ACT THE CONDITIONS TO BE MET FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132 IN A CASE OF ANY PERSON. IN SO FAR AS THE WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATION ISSUED IN THE NAME OF M/S SRI MAHALAX MI JEWELLERS IS CONCERNED WE FIND THAT THE SEARCH WAS COMMENCED ON 8-12-1998 AND THERE WAS A GAP OF 16 DAYS TILL IT WAS EFFECTIVELY CONCLUDED ON 22-12- 98 AS ARGUED BY THE COUNSEL AND FINALLY CONCLUDED ON 13-1-1999 IE WITH THE GAP OR 35 DAYS. THIS ISSUE SHALL BE DEALT WHILE DEALING WITH THE APPEAL OF THE FIRM AND WE RESTRICT OURSELVES TO THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEA L. THUS CONSIDERING THE PRINCIPLES OF SANCTITY OF THE SEARCH ON A PERSON W HICH HAS THE EFFECT OF BREACHING THE RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS WE ARE OF THE OPINION A SEARCH ACTION CANNOT BE MOUNTED WITHOUT PROPER NAME AND ADDRESS O F THE PERSON TO BE SEARCHED AND THE DETAILS OF THE PREMISES TO BE SEAR CHED MENTIONED CLEARLY AND SPECIFICALLY ON THE FACE OF THE WOA AND PANCHAN AMA THEREOF. THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY SCOPE OF INTERPRETATION OF THE EX PRESSION IN THESE MATTERS. THE EXPRESSIONS SUCH OTHERS CANNOT GIVE AUTHORITY TO THE REVENUE TO MOUNT SEARCH OR EXTEND THE CONCLUDED SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. IN THE INSTANT CASE AS SEEN FROM PARA 8 OF THE PANCHANAMA DATED 24 TH DECEMBER 1998 THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS WERE CLOSED ON 24/12/1998 AT 5.40 PM AS FIALLY CONCLUDED AFTER RECORDING OF THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND AFTE R SEIZING A BUNDLE OF PAPERS GIVEN IN THE ANNEXURE-C. IN THESE FACTUAL CI RCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE OPINION THE SEARCH IS CONCLUDED IN THE MONTH OF DE CEMBER 1998 AND IMPUGNED BLOCK ASSESSMENT MUST HAVE BEEN COMPLETED BEFORE END OF THE MONTH OF DECEMBER 2000. WE ARE NOT WITH THE REVENUE ON THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PO CLAMPED ON 8 TH DECEMBER IS IN FORCE EVEN AFTER THE SEARCH WAS FIN ALLY CONCLUDED ON 24 TH DECEMBER TILL THE SEARCH ON THE FIRM IS FINALLY CO NCLUDED IN JANUARY 1999 VIDE THE PANCHANAMA DRAWN IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEES FIRM. IT IS IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF THE SEARCH PROCEEDING S THE SEACH CANNOT BE RECORDED CONCLUDED ON ONE HAND AND PO IS CONTINUING BEYOND 24 TH DECEMBER ON THE OTHER. ONCE THE SEARCH IS COMPLETED THE PO ON THE ASSESSEES PREMISE 6 ITA NO. 1395/PN/05 MAHALAXMI JEWELLERS BLOCK PERIOD: 1988-89 TO 1998-99 SHOULD BE DEEMED EXPIRED ON THE SAME DATE AND TIME. AS SUCH THERE IS NO EXPLANATION OF THE REVENUE TO ACCOUNT FOR EXTENSION OF THE IMPUGNED PO BEYOND 24 TH DECEMBER. ON THIS COUNT ALSO AND IN VIEW OF UNEXP LAINED GAP THE DURATION BEYOND 24 TH DECEMBER CANNOT BE REGARDED AS LEGAL IN VIEW OF TH E ABOVE CITED SUPREME COURTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF DEEPAK AGARWAL (SUPRA). THUS WE HAVE HELD THAT THE EXPRESSIONS OTHERS US ED IN THE WOA DRAWN IN THE NAME OF THE OTHER PERSONS CANNOT COVER THE CASE S OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER IT IS OUR OPINION THAT THE 14. IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT THE PERSON CANNOT BE S UBJECTED TO SEARCH WITH THIS KIND OF WARRANT BEARING NO NAME OF THE PERSON TO BE AGAIN SEARCHED AND THEREFORE WE HAVE TO DISMISS THIS KIND OF GENERALI ZED ARGUMENTS. IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE SEARCHING A PERSON INVOLVES THE BREA CHING THE PERSONAL RIGHTS OF THE PERSONS GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF IN DIA AND WOA HAS TO BEAR SPECIFIC NAME OF THE PERSON TO BE SEARCHED. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE LEGAL POSITION WHERE THE APEX COURT DEMANDS FOR EXPLANAT ION OF THE REVENUE FOR THE GAP THEREFORE THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 132(3) MUST BE MEANINGFUL AND FOR A PURPOSE. THE REVENUE HAS TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR ISSUING THE SAID PROHIBITORY ORDERS AND CONTINUATION OF THE SAME OVE R THE PERIOD OF TIME. WHERE AS IN THE INSTANT CASE THERE IS NO EXPLANATI ON FROM THE REVENUE FOR ISSUANCE OF THE SAID ORDERS AND THE CONTINUATION TH EREOF. HENCE WE DISMISS THE REVENUES LOGIC IN THIS REGARD. IN ANY CASE THE PANCHANAMA DATED 24 TH DECEMBER SPEAKS OF THE CONCLUSION OF THE SEARCH FIN ALLY ON THE SAID DATE. 15. THEREFORE THE WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATION IS ALWA YS PERSON SPECIFIC AS HELD BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF PUNE TRIBUNAL IN NUMBER OF CASES AND SO IS THE SEARCH & SEIZURE ACTION ON PERSON. DURING THE SEARC H OF A PERSON MANY NUMBER OF PREMISES OWNED OR NOT OWNED BY THE SAID P ERSON ARE COVERED WITH THE AIM TO UNEARTH THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF SUCH P ERSON. THEREFORE THE SEARCH ONCE INITIATED ON A PERSON WITH A WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATION ALL THE SPECIFIED PREMISES ARE COVERED AND AT THE END THE SEARCH IS FINALLY CONCLUDED ON A SPECIFIED DATE AND TIME AS MENTIONED IN THE PA NCHANAMA. ONCE THE SEARCH IS CONCLUDED FORMALLY AND FINALLY THERE CAN NOT BE OTHER PANCHANAMA WITHOUT FRESH WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATION WHICH IS OF COURSE ISSUE AFTER DUE RECORDING OF FRESH SATISFACTION OF THE COMPETENT AU THORITY AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132 OF THE ACT. ONCE THE SEARCH IS EFFEC TIVELY CONCLUDED ON 8 TH DECEMBER ITSELF AND FORMALLY CONCLUDED ON 24.12.199 8 IN VIEW OF THE PROHIBITORY ORDERS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 132(3) SEA RCH ON THE ASSESSEE HAS COME TO THE END ON THE SAID DATES WHICH INCIDENTAL LY FALLEN IN THE MONTH OF DECEMBER 1998 ITSELF. IN ANY CASE NOTHING IS BROUG HT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THERE ARE VALID PROHIBITORY ORDERS IN FORCE AND THERE IS REASONABLE EXPLANATION FOR DELAY IN LIFTING THE SAID ORDERS AFTER 8 TH DECEMBER OR AFTER 24 TH DECEMBER. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IN OUR OPINION IN THE ABSENCE OF THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE RATIO IN THE CASE OF DEEPAK AGA RWAL (SUPRA) THE SEARCH ON THE ASSESSEE IS FINALLY CONCLUDED ON 8.12.1998. THEREFORE THE DUE DATE FOR COMPLETION OF THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT IS 31.12.2000 AN D NOT 31.01.2001. THEREFORE WE ARE OF CONSIDERED OPINION THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE OF LIMITATION HAS TO BE REVERSED . CONSEQUENTLY THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.1.2001 BECOMES INVALID AND ILLEGAL AND IT HAS TO BE QUASHED. ACCORDINGLY THE GROUND 1 OF THE ASSESSEE RELATING TO LIMITATION IS ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 7 ITA NO. 1395/PN/05 MAHALAXMI JEWELLERS BLOCK PERIOD: 1988-89 TO 1998-99 5. THUS THE LEGAL ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BE FORE ARE ALREADY EXPLAINED BY THIS BENCH WHILE DEALING WITH THE SIMILAR ISSUES RAISED IN THE CITED GROUP CASES. ON FINDING THAT THE FACTS ARE PRIMA FACIE CO MPARABLE THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF JETHMAL F. SONI HAS AN APPL ICATION TO THE FACTS OF INSTANT CASE. THEREFORE AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES W E ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OR ADDITIONAL GROUNDS SHOULD BE REFERRED TO THE FILES OF THE A.O FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITED ORDER DATED 10-8-2010 IN THE CASE OF JETHMAL F. SONI ( SUPRA) AND THAT OF THE BABULAL SONI (SUPRA). AO IS ALSO DIRECTED TO TAKE NOTE OF THE EXISTING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS ON THE ISSUED RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH ADJUDIC ATING AND PASSING A REQUISITE SPEAKING ORDER. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FILE A COPY OF THE SAID ORDER BEFORE THE A.O AND EXPLAIN AS TO HOW THE FACTS ARE HOMOLOGOUS AND THE SAID DECISION IS APPLICABLE TO THE IMPUGNED APP EAL. THE A.O SHALL GRANT REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE IN THIS REGARD. ACCORDINGLY MATTER IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE A.O FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE. 6. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH DAY OF JULY 2011. SD/- SD- (I.C.SUDHIR) (D.KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE DATED THE 15 TH JULY 2011 ANKAM COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : ASSESSEE DEPARTMENT CIT-V PUNE CIT (A) III PUNE 5. D.R. ITAT A BENCH BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T PUNE