Per A.D. Jain, Judicial Member. - This appeal has been filed by the department for the Block Period from 1-4-1988 to 30-11-1998, against the order dated 21-4-2003 passed by the learned CIT(A), Bathinda.

2. In this case, the Abohar police, on 23-11-1998, during a routine inspection of vehicles at a naka, seized gold ornaments weighing 5.5 Kgs., cash amounting to Rs. 3,14,000, 25 loose papers and a Note Pad from the possession of the assessee, who was travelling in his car. The Director of Income-tax (Investigation), Ludhiana issued a warrant of authorization under section 132A(1) of the Income-tax Act (‘the Act’) to the S.H.O., Abohar on 27-11-1998. The Asstt. Director of Income-tax (Investigation), Bathinda issued a letter of requisition under section 132A of the Income-tax Act to the S.H.O., Abohar, on 30-11-1998, requisitioning all the above assets, i.e., jewellery, cash, books of account and other documents (page 103 of the assessee’s paper book, ‘APB’), on the conclusion of the proceedings by the said S.H.O. The warrant of authorization contained the names of the persons to whom the assets requisitioned were sought to be delivered by the S.H.O. The warrant of authorization and the requisitioning letter were served on the S.H.O. on 30-11-1998. However, the assets requisitioned were not handed over by the S.H.O. to the Requisitioning Officer, i.e., the Asstt. Director of Income-tax (Investigation), Bathinda. The jewellery and cash were, later, released to the assessee, but the documents and the Note Pad requisitioned were not handed over to the Department. The position remains the same till date. The Requisitioning Officer had taken photocopies of the loose papers and the Note Pad from the Office of the S.H.O. The statement of the assessee was recorded on 25-11-1998 while he was still in the custody of the Abohar police. Subsequently, his statement was also recorded on 14-1-1999 by the Requisitioning Officer. It was on the basis of these photocopies and statements that the block assessment was made at an undisclosed income of Rs. 23,15,990 vide order dated 27-11-2000.

3. In first appeal, challenging the block assessment order, the assessee contended that jurisdiction to complete the block assessment under section 158BC of the Act is conferred on the Assessing Officer only if the books of account/documents/assets requisitioned under section 132A are physically handed over to the Assessing Officer. This submission of the assessee was accepted by the CIT(A) and the appeal was allowed by virtue of the impugned order dated 21-4-2003.

4. Aggrieved, the Department preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.

5. During the appellate proceedings before the Division Bench, the learned counsel for the assessee, Shri S.K. Bansal requested for referring the appeal to a Special Bench for resolving the controversy as to whether the expression "where any search has been conducted under section 132A or books of account or other documents or assets are requisitioned under section 132A", as employed in section 158BC means the physical delivery of such books of account or other documents or assets to the Assessing Officer, or if the mere service of the warrant of authorization under section 132A is sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer to complete the block assessment.

6. Considering the issue involved to be important, the Amritsar Division Bench of the Tribunal referred the following question to the Hon’ble President of the Tribunal for being resolved by a Larger Bench:—

"Whether, the jurisdiction to complete block assessment under section 158BC is conferred on the Assessing Officer by service of a warrant of authorization under section 132A by a competent authority or on physical handling over the books of account/documents/assets etc. requisitioned, to Income-tax Authority concerned ?"

7. The Hon’ble President of the Tribunal, exercising power under section 255(3) of the Act, considered the above question referred to him by