ANIL MINDA AND OTHERS versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Citation: [2023] 3 S.C.R. 1150 · Decided: 24-03-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1150
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
   [2023] 3 S.C.R. 1150
1150
ANIL MINDA AND OTHERS
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(Civil Appeal Nos. 345-350 of 2012)
MARCH 24, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Income Tax Act, 1961 – ss. 132, 158, 158BC, 158BE(b) –
Period of Limitation – Commencement of – Whether the period of
limitation of two years for the block assessment under Section
158BC/158BE would commence from the date of the Panchnama
last drawn or the date of the last authorization – Held: Supreme
Court in the case of  VLS Finance Limited held that the relevant date
would be the date on which the Panchnama is drawn and not the
date on which the authorization/s is/are are issued – It cannot be
disputed that the block assessment proceedings are initiated on the
basis of the entire material collected during the search/s and on the
basis of the respective Panchnama/s drawn – Therefore, the date of
the Panchnama last drawn can be said to be the relevant date and
can be said to be the starting point of limitation of two years for
completing the block assessment proceedings – Appeal allowed.
VLS Finance Limited & Another v. Commissioner of
Income Tax & Another, (2016) 12 SCC 32 : [2016] 3
SCR 390 – relied on.
C.Ramaiah Reddy v. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Tax, (2011) 244 CTR 126 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2016] 3 SCR 390
relied on
Para 4.1, 7
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.345-
350 of 2012.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.09.2010 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in ITA Nos.582, 527, 593, 605, 618 and 772 of
2009.
Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, Somil Aggarwal, Advs.
for the Appellants.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1151
Balbir Singh, ASG, Arijit Prasad, Sr. Adv., Rupesh Kumar, Prahlad
Singh, Mrs. Gargi Khanna, Prashant Singh, Shradha Deshmukh, Raj
Bahadur Yadav, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
judgment and order dated 14.09.2010 passed by the High Court of Delhi
at New Delhi in ITA No. 582 of 2009 and other allied appeals, by which
the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the said appeals
preferred by the Revenue and set aside the orders passed by the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short, ‘ITAT’) holding that the
assessment orders passed in the case of the respective assessees were
time barred as the assessments were not completed within two years
from the end of the month in which the last authorisation for search
under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to
as the ‘Act’) was issued, the respective assessees have preferred the
present appeals.
2. For the sake of convenience, the facts arising out of the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court in ITA No. 582/2009 are
narrated, which in nutshell are as under:
2.1 That the two warrants of authorization under section 132(1)
of the Act for carrying out the search at bank locker with Canara Bank,
Kamla Nagar were issued on 13.03.2001 and 26.03.2001. Warrants which
were executed on 13.03.2001 were executed on various dates, which
are as under:
2.2 During the execution of the search warrants dated 13.03.2001,
the Income Tax authorities got the information about a locker belonging
to the assessee in a bank. Therefore on 26.03.2001,second authorization
was issued for searching the said locker and the same was executed on
ANIL MINDA AND OTHERS v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME
TAX
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1152
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
26.03.2001 itself. Therefore, the first authorization came on 13.03.2001
was for search at the office and residence of the assessee and it continued
for some time and culminated only on 11.04.2001 and the second search
authorization dated 26.03.2001 came to be executed on the same date
and the Panchnama was drawn on 26.03.2001.
2.3 Thereafter, notice under Section 158 BC for filing block
assessment was issued. The assessee filed his return and the assessment
was completed by passing assessment order in April, 2003. Similar
assessment orders were passed in case of other assessees. The
respondents – assessees filed appeals challenging the assessment orders,
inter alia, on the ground that the assessment was time barred. According
to the assessees, limitation of two years as prescribed under section
158BE of the Act, which was to be computed when Panchnama in
respect of the second authorization was executed, i.e., on 26.03.2

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.