Sec. 158BD of Income Tax Act, 1961 – Search & Seizure – The case of the assessee is that the partnership firm comprises five partners and in which one of the partner viz., G.T.Krishna Murthy has 10% share. A search was conducted on HET GROUP in Shimoga on 18.01.2001. A search was also conducted on the premises of G.T.Krishna Murthy, from where one of the documents was seized and a panchanama was prepared. The statement of G.T.Krishnmurthy was also recorded and a notice under Section 158BD of the Act was issued to proceed under Section 158BC of the Act. The appellant furnished NIL return on the basis of commercial tax returns showing the retail trade business on 17.10.2003. Notices under Section 142 as well as Section 143(2) were also served by the AO. Thereafter, the AO made assessment of the appellant’s total income under Section 158BD read with Section 143(3) of the Act for the block period by proportionately determining appellant’s income. Thereafter, the AO charged interest under Section 158BFA(i) vide order under Section 154 of the Act for the block period in the name of M/s Venkateshwara Bottles. CIT(A) disposed of the appeal of the assessee and then ITAT allowed the appeal of the revenue. High Court dismissed the appeal of the assessee holding that:– On the basis of the trial balance sheet seized during the search operation, the tribunal has recorded a finding that names of all nine partners including the five partners of the assessee firm appear therein, which goes to prove beyond any shadow of doubt that assessee firm has been indulging in two types of business in the same line and parallel business was being carried out clandestinely with the active participation of four other persons. Accordingly, upheld the validity of the order of assessment passed under Section 158BD read with Section 143(3) of the Act, observing that Assessing Officer was justified in levying interest under Section 158BFA(1) of the Act – SRI VENKATESHA BOTTLES Vs. ASSTT. CIT [2020] 422 ITR 284 (KARN)