The Cit Mumbai v. Adolf Patric Pinto

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.856 OF 2008 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.856 OF 2008 The CIT Mumbai .. Appellant Vs. Adolf Patric Pinto .. Respondent Mr.Vimal Gupta i/by Mrs.Devki Iyer for the Appellant. Mr.K.Gopal with Mr.Jitendra Singh for the Respondent. CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATE : 5th September, 2008 DATE : 5th September, 2008 P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The Tribunal by its order dated 23.2.2006 has categorically held that the Assessment was clearly barred by law of limitation as per Section 158 BE of the Act. Mr.Gopal, the learned Counsel for the Respondent has brought to our notice the observations of the Tribunal in the aforesaid order dated 23.2.2006. In paragraph 10 of the said order dated 23.2.2006 it is categorically recorded that there was a mentioning in the panchanama dated 29.6.1998 that the search was finally concluded. It appears that though the Appellant sought to prepare another panchanama on 1st August, 1998, nothing was however mentioned in the said panchanama with regard to the conclusion of the search. In view thereof, and also in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT CITV/s.Mrs.Sandhya P.Naik & Ors. 253 ITR 534, wherein, the V/s.Mrs.Sandhya P.Naik & Ors. 253 ITR 534, assessment was held to be barred by limitation, we are not inclined to entertain this Appeal. Hence, the Appeal stands dismissed. (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)