- (1.) THE Revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act"), against the order of the Tribunal (Chandigarh 'B' Bench), dt. 7th Oct., 2003 passed In IT(SS) No. 1118/Chd/1996 for the asst. yrs. 1986 -87 to 1996 -97.
(2.) ON 26th Sept., 1995, search and seizure action under Section 132(1) of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee and assessment under Section 158BC was completed. The assessee preferred an appeal and also raised additional grounds against validity of search. The Tribunal held that search and seizure was illegal as no material was produced before the Tribunal to show that the requirements of Section 132(1) of the Act were complied with. Though initially, number of questions of law were sought to be raised, but In view of order dt. 28th July, 2008, of this Court, the matter is required to be considered with respect to questions (a) and (b), which are as under: (a) Whether on the facts and In the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in deciding to go into the validity of the action taken under Section 132(1) of the IT Act. 1961. (b) Whether the Tribunal was right In law to permit the assessee to enlarge the scope, ambit and complexion of the appeal In the garb of raising additional grounds, specifically when such grounds do not fall within the scope of Section 253 of the IT Act, since this issue had not been raised before the assessing authority the same could not be taken before the appellate authority, and that too, when no specific appeal is provided in the Act.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Revenue does not dispute that against raising of additional grounds, an appeal, being ITA No. 129 of 2002 was preferred before this Court, which was dismissed on 16th June, 2003.;