Commissioner of Income Tax vs Shri Pashupati Tours and Travels

This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order dated January 25, 2007, by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in C. O. No. 24/ Del/2007 in IT (SS) A. No. 313/Del/2004 pertaining to the block period April 1, 1990 to November 17, 2000.

The only issue that arises in this appeal relates to the question of limitation in respect of the assessment order passed pursuant to a search and seizure operation.

The Tribunal noted that there is no dispute that as per the relevant panchnama dated December 12, 2000, the search was concluded at 5.45 p.m. on that date.

Consequently, in view of the provisions of Section 158BE(1) read with Explanation 2 thereto, the assessment was required to be framed within two years from the end of the month in which the last panchnama was drawn i.e., two years from December 31, 2000. The assessment should have been completed on or before December 31, 2002. The assessment order in this case was passed on January 31, 2003. In these circumstances, the Tribunal held the same to be barred by limitation.

The Revenue had suggested that the last panchnama was not of December 12, 2000, but was of January 3, 2001. However, the Tribunal negated this contention by holding that the panchnama of January 3, 2001, was in respect of Shri Pashupati Tours and Travels Ltd. whereas, the assessee in the present case was not a company, but a partnership firm by the name of Shri Pashupati Nathji Tours and Travels. The Tribunal found as a finding of fact that said panchnama dated January 3, 2001, did not pertain to the present assessee. However, before us, learned Counsel for the Revenue had sought time to file the relevant panchnama for examination by this court. We had granted time on March 31, 2008, and, again, on September 19, 2008, as a final opportunity.

However, the same has not been filed as the same is reportedly not traceable. In such circumstances, we have nothing before us, which could enable us to infer that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is perverse. We also note that there was no argument before the Tribunal with regard to the panchnama dated January 3, 2001, containing a typographical/clerical error in the sense that although, it refers to the present assessee, but the name had been incorrectly shown as referring to a private limited company.

In these circumstances, we find that no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeal is dismissed.