Case Details

Citation(s)
2010 SLG 1817 2010 SLD 1817 (2010) 323 ITR 624
Delhi High Court
IT APPEAL Nos. 691 AND 727 OF 2009 AND 200 OF 2010, FEBRUARY 16, 2010
BADAR DURREZ AHMED AND SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, JJ.
Sanjeev Sabharwal for the Appellant Manish Sharma for the
Respondent

Commissioner of Income Tax

v.

Jyoti Limboo

Law:

Section:

- Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - General Where in assessee's appeal before Tribunal one of points taken was that warrant of authorization had been issued by Additional Director of IT (Inv.) who was not authorized to issue a search warrant and, therefore, assessment made in consequence of such an invalid search warrant, was itself invalid and was liable to be quashed and Tribunal accepted assessee's plea, since by virtue of Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009, an amendment had been introduced in section 132(1) with retrospective effect from 1-6-1994. whereby Additional Director and also been empowered to issue warrants of authorization, in view of this amendment, impugned order of Tribunal was liable to be set aside and matter is to be remitted to Tribunal to consider appeals filed by assessee as well as by Revenue on all other grounds urged by parties [Block Period 1-4-1989 to 23-6-1999] CIT v. Jyoti Limboo, [2010] 232 CTR (Delhi) 183 Where in the assessee's appeal before the Tribunal one of the points taken was that the warrant of authorization had been issued by the Additional Director of IT (Inv.) who was not authorized to issue a search warrant and, therefore, the assessment made in consequence of such an invalid search warrant, was itself invalid and was liable to be quashed and the Tribunal accepted the assessee's plea. Since by virtue of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009, an amendment had been introduced in section 132(1) with retrospective effect from 1-6-1994. whereby the Additional Director had also been empowered to issue warrants of authorization, in view of this amendment, the impugned order of the Tribunal was liable to be set aside and the matter is to be remitted to the Tribunal to consider the appeals filed by the assessee as well as by the revenue on all the other grounds urged by the parties. CASE REFERRED TO Dr. Nalini Mahajan v. Director of IT (Inv.) [2002] 176 CTR (Delhi) 1 : [2002] 257 ITR 123 (Delhi). Sanjeev Sabharwal for the Appellant Manish Sharma for the Respondent JUDGMENT Siddharth Mridul, J.-IT Appeal Nos. 691 of 2009 and 727 of 2009 arise out of the common order passed by the Tribunal on 21st Nov., 2008…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492