Download eBook on Survey, Search & Seizure under ... - TaxGuru

| 38 | Voice of CAGems of Judiciary.1. Siksha “O” Anusandhan v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2012]20 taxmann.com 798 (Orissa) In absence of a warrant in name of anassessee, search conducted in its premises would not be a valid searchas contemplated under section 1322. Ramesh Chander & Ors. Vs. CIT & Ors. (1974) 93 ITR 244 (P & H)No warrant of authorization u.s 132 could be issued where money anddocuments were taken possession of by a police inspector and the CITcould have no reason to believe within the meaning of sec. 132 whenhe did not know anything about the person concerned and made noenquiry from the ITO concerned as regards evasion of tax. Furtherapproved by Hon’ble SC in (1986) 58 CTR 129(SC) CIT vs TarsemKumar & Anr.3. CIT Karnal vs. Rakesh Kumar, Mukesh Kumar [2009] 178 Taxman 224(Punj. & Har)/ [2009] 313 ITR 305(P & H)- Any Search warrant issuedunder section 132 in name of a dead person is invalid and void ab initio4. J.M. Trading Corp. V. ACIT, [2008] 20 SOT 489 (Mum.) - Merementioning of name in panchnama does not lead to conclusion that avalid search was conducted against assessee. Further mere search ofpremises owned by assessee but rented to another concern does not byany implication prove conduct of search as enumerated u/s 132 againstassessee.5. ACIT vs P. Srinivas Naik (2008) 114 TTJ 0856/(2009) 117 ITD 0201(Bang.) Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the legality ofsearch ; assessee has no reason to challenge the search for the reasonthat the impugned search was carried out on the business / residentialpremises of a third party and not on the premises of the assessee.6. ACIT vs. Vinod Goel [2008] 111 ITD 70 (ASR)- Search warrant isissued in the name of a person, place to be searched is to be mentionedtherein, but it is not necessary that such place or building must belongto that person in whose name search warrant is issued;7. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sarb Consulate Marine ProductsP. Ltd. [ 2007] 294 ITR 0444 (Del.) - Search should be a continuousprocess, unless there is a valid explanation for the time gap.8. P.P. Jewellers (P) Ltd. and Ors. vs ACIT – [2006] 111 TTJ 187 [ITAT –Delhi] see alsoJose Cyriac v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2012] 20