Case Law Details

Case Name : Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nilesh S Raithatha (Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad)
Appeal Number : Tax Appeal No. 861 of 2011
Date of Judgement/Order : 15/10/2012
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : All High Courts (3799) Gujarat High Court (319)

Search operation was carried out in one M/s. G.B. & Company under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Though the premises of the assessee were also searched during search operations, the same were in the capacity of an employee of the said company and not in individual capacity. Subsequently, the assessee was visited with notice under section 158BC of the Act. Assessment framed on such basis came to be anulled by the Tribunal by the impugned judgement. The Tribunal noted that the assessee not being searched person, if at all, could have been proceeded under section 158BD of the Act by issuance of proper notice. In the present case, admittedly this was not done so. The Tribunal in that view of the matter relying on decision of the Apex Court in case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and others v. Hotel Blue Moon reported in 321 ITR 362 and Manish Maheshwari v. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax and another reported in (2007) 289 ITR 341(SC) ruled in favour  of the respondent assessee.

 HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX APPEAL No. 861 of 2011

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Versus
NILESH S RAITHATHA

Date : 15/10/2012

Revenue is in appeal against judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“the Tribunal” for short) dated 31.12.2010 raising following questions for our consideration :

“(A) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding the assessment finalized u/s.158BC of the Act as invalid?

(B) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the assessment framed u/s.158BC can be annulled merely on account of so-called procedural lapses though the same is based on incriminating documents collected during a valid search carried out u/s.132 of the Act?”

Though multiple questions have been framed, issue is single namely, validity of block assessment proceedings against respondent assessee on the basis of notice under section 158BC of the Act.

Admitted facts are that search operation was carried out in one M/s. G.B. & Company under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(“the Act” for short). Though the premises of the assessee were also searched during search operations, the same were in the capacity of an employee of the said company and not in individual capacity. Subsequently, the assessee was visited with notice under section 158BC of the Act. Assessment framed on such basis came to be anulled by the Tribunal by the impugned judgement. The Tribunal noted that the assessee not being searched person, if at all, could have been proceeded under section 158BD of the Act by issuance of proper notice. In the present case, admittedly this was not done so. The Tribunal in that view of the matter relying on decision of the Apex Court in case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and others v. Hotel Blue Moon reported in 321 ITR 362 and Manish Maheshwari v. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax and another reported in (2007) 289 ITR 341(SC) ruled in favour  of the respondent assessee.

Having heard learned counsel for the Revenue and having perused the judgement of the Tribunal on record and other documents, we are of the opinion that tribunal committed no error. On the basis of admitted facts, the Tribunal concluded that the proceedings against the respondent who was not the searched person under section 158BC of the Act, was not permissible. No question of law arises. Tax Appeal is dismissed.

Download Judgment/Order

More Under Income Tax

Posted Under

Category : Income Tax (25548)
Type : Judiciary (10299)
Tags : income tax search (94) section 132 (37)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *