- (1.) THIS appeal by the Revenue, seeks to challenge the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 26.5.2003, accepting the appeal of the assessee, and holding the block assessment, to be barred by time.
(2.) THIS appeal was admitted on 21.7.2004, by framing following two substantial questions of law: (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, on true interpretation of Section 158BE read with explanation 2 the Tribunal was justified in holding the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer as barred by time? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the authorisation for search made with approval of search operation could not be validly given by D.C.I.T. so as to vitiate the assessment proceedings under Section 158BE? The necessary facts are, that on 18.3.1996, Rs. 8.35 lacs were seized by the S.H.O., Abu Road and the information was sent to the Commissioner of Income -tax about the seizure on 21.3.1996, who informed the Assistant Director, who investigated, and on enquiry, it was revealed, that the seized cash belonged to the respondent assessee. Consequently, the statement of the respondent assessee was recorded on 22.3.1996, wherein he admitted the amount to be unaccounted -for. Then, on the basis of that statement, the warrant of authorization under Section 132A, was signed by the Commissioner on 25.3.1996, requisitioning the said seized asset. The S.H.O. declined to deliver the assets to the income tax authorities. Then, the application was moved in the Court of ACJM, Railways, who directed the asset to be handed over to the assessee. That order was challenged before this Court, andThis Court vide order dated 16.5.97, in S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 337/1996, directed that a sum of Rs. 5.01 lacs should be handed over to the CIT, and further directed, that the assessment be completed within a period of three months, which time was subsequently extended. The Assessing Authority, after completing necessary proceedings, passed the assessment order Annex.1, dt.13.11.1997.
(3.) THIS assessment was challenged in appeal before the Tribunal, and a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the Revenue, that the appeal would lie to the Commissioner, and not to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal overruled the objection. Then, the matter was heard by the Tribunal, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed vide impugned order dated 26.5.2003.;