COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. S.K. KATYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') is directed against the order dt. beyond the time specified under s. 158BE(1)(b) of the said Act. No. 725 -B with Bank of India, Nehru Place, New Delhi belonging to the assessee were purportedly seized. In the course inventorised and valued as per Annex. 5 to the Panchnama. Paras 8 and 9 of the Panchnama are relevant and they are as follows : a.m./p.m. as finally concluded/as temporarily concluded for the day to be commenced subsequently for which purpose seals were placed on the entire place/on cash box of the right hand side almirah on the ground floor bedroom of Shri S.K. Katyal at E -147, Kalkajee, New Delhi, seven seals in our presence.

(2.) AN order under s. 132(3) of the IT Act, 1961 in respect of the sealed premises/lockers/bank account any other (specify) as above was served on Shri/Smt. S.K. Katyal by the said authorized officer." order under s. 132(3) of the said Act was passed in respect of the contents thereof. It is an admitted position that the contents of the sealed cash box were nothing but the jewellery listed and valued as per Annex. 5 to the Panchnama. The 2000 but, had only "temporarily concluded for the day to be commenced subsequently." This, however, is a bone of search was conducted thereafter. We shall examine these contentions later. For now, we need to complete the narration of the sequence of events. the following revocation order : Revocation order the bedroom of Shri S. K. Katyal, at ground floor of premises E -147 Kalkajee, New Delhi is hereby revoked. The seals placed on the almirah on the date of search were found to be intact." (Emphasis supplied) Panchnama was also drawn up. This Panchnama reveals that it was pursuant to the same warrant of authorization dt. written in hand : a.m./p.m. as finally concluded/as temporarily concluded for the day to be commenced subsequently for which purpose seals were placed on the entire place/on in our presence.

(3.) AN order under s. 132(3) of the IT Act, 1961 in respect of the sealed premises/lockers/bank account any other (specify) was served on Shri/Smt. by the said authorized officer." date could not be regarded as the date on which the search had concluded and, therefore, the period of limitation could under s. 158BE(1)(b) of the said Act.