If search warrant mentions name of all partners of firm, search can be conducted in partners premises too

PrintPDF

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH

Naresh Chand Baid

v.

Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax

IT APPEAL No. 55 of 2004†

October 17, 2011

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not eligible for immunity benefit under the Scheme, 1997, as the assessee, in whose case search was conducted under section 132 was not eligible for making a declaration of his undisclosed income in respect of any earlier years prior to the previous year in which the search had been initiated and this position was further clarified in the Circular No. 753 issued on 10-6-1997.

There is no dispute that in the warrant of authorization for search, the name of the assessee was clearly stated and pursuant to the search conducted on 11-11-1997, it was found that a declaration of undisclosed income of Rs. 4 lakhs was made by the assessee under the Scheme, 1997 on 13-12-1997, for which there was no immunity to the assessee. Thus, the finding recorded by the Tribunal was strictly in accordance with law and the same cannot be held as perverse.

The contention of the assessee that warrant of authorization was not issued individually in the name of the assessee, thus, the case is distinguishable and the assessee was not prohibited from making any declaration of undisclosed income as the search itself conducted under section 132 was bad, does not merit acceptance. It is an admitted fact that the name of the assessee was in the warrant of authorization for search. The assessee participated and the article found in the search could not have been ignored on the basis that no warrant of authorization was issued in the name of the assessee, individually. The assessee had not raised this objection in the course of search proceedings or immediately, thereafter.

The Tribunal has rightly appreciated the facts, circumstances and the materials available on record. The finding of the Tribunal in allowing the appeal filed by the department was just and proper. Thus, it was to be held that the authorities were competent to conduct search in the premises of the partners of the firm when the names of all the partners were specifically mentioned in the warrant of authorization. The finding of the Tribunal in respect of declaration made under the Scheme, 1997 is also just and proper.