CIT JAIPUR Vs. SMT. UMLESH GOEL
LAWS(RAJ)-2016-8-198
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (AT: JAIPUR)
Decided on August 31,2016

Cit Jaipur Appellant
VERSUS
Smt. Umlesh Goel Respondents

JUDGEMENT

J.K.RANKA, J. - (1.) These four appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act are directed against the order dated 4.4.2003 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. It pertains to block period 1.4.1988 to 23.3.1999.
(2.) Following questions of law were admitted by this Court 153 of 2003 "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right and justified in holding that no legal search has taken place in the case of the assessee under Section 132(1), as specifically the name of the assessee was not mentioned in the search warrant and consequently assumption of jurisdiction under Section 158BC by the A.O. was bad in law? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right and justified in coming to the conclusion that the word 'family' or 'family members' mentioned in the search warrant, do not cover wife and daughter of a person? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal had power to adjudicate on the issue of jurisdiction of the A.O. under Section 158BD, when no such issue was decided by the CIT(A)? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right and justified in holding that CIT(A)'s direction, to the A.O., to initiate action under Section 158BD/147 was without authority and CIT(A) has no power to expand the jurisdiction of the A.O.?" I.T.A. No. 63 of 2004 "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right and justified in holding that no legal search has taken place in the case of the assessee under Section 132(1), as specifically the name of the assessee was not mentioned in the search warrant and consequently assumption of jurisdiction under Section 158BC by the A.O. was bad in law? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the I.T.A.T. was right and justified in upholding the order of C.I.T.(A) by which the entire search proceedings against the assessee was annulled and thus, providing a relief of Rs.41,25,500/- to the assessee? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right and justified in coming to the conclusion that the word 'family' or 'family members' mentioned in the search warrant, do not cover wife and daughter of a person? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal had power to adjudicate on the issue of jurisdiction of the A.O. Under Section 158BD, when no such issue was decided by the CIT(A)? 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right and justified in holding that CIT(A)'s direction, to the A.O., to initiate action under Section 158BD/147 was without authority and CIT(A) has no power to expand the jurisdiction of the A.O.? 6. Whether the findings and conclusion of the learned Tribunal are perverse and contrary to the fact and law?" I.T.A. No. 112 of 2004 "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right and justified in holding that the CIT(A) had no power to expand the jurisdiction of the A.O. by directing him to take appropriate action under Section 158BD/Section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the C.I.T(A) can direct the A.O. to initiate action against the assessee under Section 158BD/147 of the I.T. Act, 1961, when initially the action was taken under Section 158BC, by the Assessing Officer? 3. Whether the findings and conclusion of the learned Tribunal are perverse and contrary to the fact and untenable in the eye of law?" I.T.A. No. 115 of 2004 "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right and justified in holding that the CIT(A) had no power to expand the jurisdiction of the A.O. by directing him to take appropriate action under Section 158BD/Section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the C.I.T(A) can direct the A.O. to initiate action against the assessee under Section 158BD/147 of the I.T. Act, 1961, when initially the action was taken under Section 158BC, by the Assessing Officer? 3. Whether the findings and conclusion of the learned Tribunal are perverse and contrary to the fact and untenable in the eye of law?"
(3.) Since all the aforesaid appeals are admitted on more or less identical questions of law, for the sake of convenience and with the consent of parties, they are being decided by this common order.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.