High Court Of Rajasthan
CIT vs. White & White Mineral (P) Ltd.
Section 158BE
N.P. Gupta & Govind Mathur, JJ.
IT Appeal No. 25 of 2009
15th May, 2009
Counsel Appeared : K.K. Bissa, for the Appellant
JUDGMENT
By the court :
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
Learned counsel has made available for our perusal the record which includes the Panchnama dt. 20th, 21st Dec., 2002, the prohibitory order dt. 21st Dec., 2002, and order dt. 3rd Jan., 2003. So also the Panchnama dt. 3rd Jan., 2003. We also find on record at p. 36 revocation order dt. 21st Dec., 2002, revoking the prohibitory order under s. 132(3) at 3.15 PM. Likewise the prohibitory order is available at p. 35 which is dt. 21st Dec., 2002. After revoking the prohibitory order dt. 21st Dec., 2002, there is nothing to show that any fresh prohibitory order was clamped. Then the Panchnama dt. 20th, 21st Dec., 2002, does not show that a search remained incomplete or was continued to be completed on any subsequent date in close proximity or in continuity. Thus, it is clear that the entire episode was over on 21st Dec., 2002, and therefore, the prohibitory order was revoked. In that view of the matter, we do not find any error in the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. It was contended that the Panchnama, dt. 3rd Jan., 2003 was required to be prepared at that time, and there is nothing to show, much less to assume, that at that time it was prepared with intention to extend the time-limit. Suffice it to say that nothing was done on 3rd Jan., 2003 except merely preparing the Panchnama commencing the search at 5.05 PM and concluding at 5.15 PM.
In this view of the matter the appeal is dismissed.
[Citation : 330 ITR 172]
