Sec. 132(1) read with section 158BE of Income Tax Act, 1961 – Search & Seizure – Block Assessment Order cannot be said to be defective for want of limitation within the meaning of Section 158BE(1)(b)

Facts: Assessee filed a writ petition to assail the Block Assessment Order, the assessee has chosen to file this writ petition on the ground that, the very Block Assessment Order itself is barred by limitation under the provision, i.e., 158BE(1)(b) and also on the ground that there was no notice under Section 143(2) issued and even if it was issued, that was also barred by limitation and there had been no prior approval of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax which ought to have been obtained under Section 158BG and there had been a violation of principles of natural justice.

Held, that the Revenue's continuous search operation taken place on various dates from 25.01.2001 till 12.06.2001 can very well be construed as an authorised search operation, therefore the panchanama issued on 12.06.2001 shall be deemed to be the last authorisation within the meaning of Explanation 2 to Section 158BE. If that being the position, the impugned Block Assessment Order, dated 30.06.2003 is within the limitation of two years under Section 158BE(1)(b) commencing from 01.07.2001 since the end of the month in which the last of authorisation for search under Section 132 was to be reckoned only as 30.06.2001, thus, the Court is of the considered view that, the impugned Block Assessment Order, dated 30.06.2003 cannot be said to be defective for want of limitation, within the meaning of Section 158BE(1)(b) and also the other reasons and grounds urged by the petitioner side since cannot be said to be the advancing factor of the petitioner's case, this Court feel that, the impugned order can very well be sustained, that means, on the grounds urged by the petitioner, it cannot be successfully assailed – BHARAT MEHTA (DR.) Vs. DEPUTY CIT [2020] 423 ITR 568 (MAD)