Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle- 3, Patna v. Rohit Raj Son Of Late Tribhuvan Roy Resident Of

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNAMiscellaneous Appeal No.450 of 2006 ====================================================== 1.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Patna. 2.Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 3, Patna. ... ... Appellant/s Versus 1.1. Smt. Madhuri Sharma wife of Late Tribhuvan Roy resident of 510, AshokPuri Colony, Khajpura P.S. B.V. College Rukunpura, District PatnaPuri Colony, Khajpura P.S. B.V. College Rukunpura, District Patna 1.2. Rohit Raj son of Late Tribhuvan Roy resident of 510, Ashok Puri Colony,Khajpura P.S. B.V. College Rukunpura, District PatnaKhajpura P.S. B.V. College Rukunpura, District Patna 1.3. Rahul Raj son of Late Tribhuvan Roy resident of 510, Ashok Puri Colony,Khajpura P.S. B.V. College Rukunpura, District PatnaKhajpura P.S. B.V. College Rukunpura, District Patna ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== withMiscellaneous Appeal No. 453 of 2006 ====================================================== 1.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Patna.2.Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 3, Patna.2.Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 3, Patna. ... ... Appellant/s Versus 1.1. Smt. Madhuri Sharma wife of Late Tribhuvan Roy resident of 510, AshokPuri Colony, Khajpura P.S. B.V. College Rukunpura, District PatnaPuri Colony, Khajpura P.S. B.V. College Rukunpura, District Patna 1.2. Rohit Raj son of Late Tribhuvan Roy resident of 510, Ashok Puri Colony,Khajpura P.S. B.V. College Rukunpura, District PatnaKhajpura P.S. B.V. College Rukunpura, District Patna 1.3. Rahul Raj son of Late Tribhuvan Roy resident of 510, Ashok Puri Colony,Khajpura P.S. B.V. College Rukunpura, District PatnaKhajpura P.S. B.V. College Rukunpura, District Patna ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :(In Miscellaneous Appeal No. 450 of 2006)For the Appellant/s: Mrs. Archana Sinha, Advocate Mr. S.K.Sharan, Advocate For the Respondent/s: Mr.Md. Nadim Seraj, Advocate Mr. D.V. Pathy, Advocate (In Miscellaneous Appeal No. 453 of 2006)For the Appellant/s: Mrs. Archana Sinha, Advocate Mr. S.K.Sharan, Advocate For the Respondent/s: Mr.Md. Nadim Seraj, Advocate Mr. D.V. Pathy, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROYCAV JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 15-12-2023 The appeals arise from a common order of the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (henceforth forshort ‘the Tribunal’) dated 21.07.2006 (Page-84) in an appealfiled by the Revenue and a cross objection filed by the assessee.The assessee is no more and his legal heirs are impleadedherein. There are two appeals filed since the contentions raisedby the Revenue in their appeal regarding the modifications anddeletions made by the First Appellate Authority were notconsidered by ‘the Tribunal’, since it held against the Revenueon the question of limitation. The objection regarding limitationwas raised by the assessee in its cross-objection. 2. In addition to the ground of limitation, on facts also ‘the Tribunal’ found that there is no reason why the assesseerespondent should be proceeded against since already the wifeof the assessee has accepted the ownership of assets and she isassessed to tax. 3. Before us, learned Senior Standing Counsel for theRevenue, Smt. Archana Sinha sought for an answer to thequestion of law regarding limitation raised in the appeal and aremand, if it is held in favour of the Department. 4. Shri D.V. Pathy, learned counsel appearing for therespondents, however, argued that since the assessee’s wife has already been assessed, there is no question of a furtherassessment on the deceased assessee in the present case. 2. In addition to the ground of limitation, on facts also ‘the Tribunal’ found that there is no reason why the assesseerespondent should be proceeded against since already the wifeof the assessee has accepted the ownership of assets and she isassessed to tax. 3. Before us, learned Senior Standing Counsel for theRevenue, Smt. Archana Sinha sought for an answer to thequestion of law regarding limitation raised in the appeal and aremand, if it is held in favour of the Department. 4. Shri D.V. Pathy, learned counsel appearing for therespondents, however, argued that since the assessee’s wife has already been assessed, there is no question of a furtherassessment on the deceased assessee in the present case. 5. The question of limitation is based on the periodwithin which the proceedings had to be completed when asearch is initiated. The time limit for completion of blockassessment is prescribed in Section 158BE of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (for brevity “IT Act”) and it has to be within twoyears from the end of the month in which the last of theauthorization for search under Section 132 of the ‘IT Act’ or forrequisition under Section 132A as the case may be, wasexecuted; in the relevant year. 6. The Panchnamas are produced as Annexure-1 andAnnexure-1/1. Annexure-1 speaks of an authorization on29.03.2001 as against the residential premises of the assessee,who is now deceased. The search commenced and concluded on30.03.2001. ‘The Tribunal’ found that the Panchnama itselfindicated that the proceedings were finally concluded on30.03.2001 at 5.45 P.M. Hence, the order passed on 30.04.2003(Annexure-2) was time barred. 7. The Revenue contends that there was a subsequentPanchnama (Annexure-1/1) prepared based on an authorizationagainst the assessee and his wife for search of the locker in a bank. This is produced as Annexure 1/1 in which theauthorization is said to be 17.04.2001. The search wascompleted on 18.04.2001. 8. Learned counsel for the assessee submits that thesecond annexure cannot be said to be a continuance of the firstannexure. Obviously, both these Panchnamas led to the orderbeing passed on 30.04.2003 (Annexure-2). 9. Despite the question of limitation being answeredagainst the Revenue; on facts ‘the Tribunal’ has found that therewas acceptance of ownership of assets made by the wife of theassessee, who was present at the time of search. The Departmenthad not even examined the assessee in the course of search orinspection. Statements were taken only from the wife of theassessee and not from the assessee. The assets were also said tohave been accepted as owned by the assessee’s wife. 10. Learned counsel for the Revenue then pointed outthat in fact the specific ground raised by the Department wasthat the wife of the assessee had no ostensible source of incomeand that the assets obviously belonged to the assessee, who wasthe husband of the lady who asserted ownership. However, ‘theTribunal’ has found that there was no examination of theassessee at all, during the search conducted or later to that. 11. We do not see any contention regarding summonsfor recording statement having been issued on the assessee. Inthe above circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with theorder of ‘the Tribunal’. We refuse to answer the question of lawon limitation since the assessee on facts was found to be notliable for the income leading to the assets discovered oninspection. The legal question can be left to be answered in anappropriate case. 12. Both the appeals stand closed refusing to answerthe question of law raised, which can be considered in anappropriate case, where the answer would have someramification on the subject matter. 13. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall standclosed. (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) Rajiv Roy, J: I agree. (Rajiv Roy, J) P.K.P./- AFR/NAFRCAV DATE12.12.2023Uploading Date15.12.2023Transmission Date