Itxa/4889/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Iii Pune v. D.k. Palkar Brothers

itxa4889-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.4889 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. D.K. Palkar Brothers ..Respondent. Mr. Vimal Gupta, senior Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. DATED : 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 P.C. :- 1.According to the revenue, the following two questions or law arise out of the order of the ITAT dated 9[th] February, 2010. (1)Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is correct in relying on the decision of Manish Maheshwarii as reported in 289 ITR 341 (SC) despite the fact that there was warrant of authorization in the case of the assessee as is clearly evidenced by panchanama dated 25/2/1997 drawn in the case of the assessee (in respect of party No.2) and letter F. No. Kop/ADI (Inv.)-II/Palkar Gr./2006-07/24 dated 29/5/2006 from ADIT (Inv.)-II,Kolhapur ?law, the ITAT is correct in relying on the decision of Manish Maheshwarii as reported in 289 ITR 341 (SC) despite the fact that there was warrant of authorization in the case of the assessee as is clearly evidenced by panchanama dated 25/2/1997 drawn in the case of the assessee (in respect of party No.2) and letter F. No. Kop/ADI (Inv.)-II/Palkar Gr./2006-07/24 dated 29/5/2006 from ADIT (Inv.)-II,Kolhapur ? itxa4889-10 (2)Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is correct in holding that the assessment is without jurisdiction despite the fact that conduct of search in the premises of the assessee is evidenced by panchanama drawn in the case of the assessee on 25/2/1997 ?law, the ITAT is correct in holding that the assessment is without jurisdiction despite the fact that conduct of search in the premises of the assessee is evidenced by panchanama drawn in the case of the assessee on 25/2/1997 ? 2.Admittedly, the alleged warrant of authorization dated 20th February, 1997 was not produced before the ITAT. Even in this appeal, the revenue has not annexed a copy of the warrant of authorization dated 20th February, 1997. In these circumstances, the decision of the ITAT in holding that the proceedings have been initiated without any warrant of authorization cannot be faulted. Accordingly, we see no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)