Section 153A does not speak specifically about the extension of time to be granted for filling of return u/s 153A. However, with reference to clause 14 of The General Clause Act, 1897 which states that where any power is conferred that unless a different intention appear, that power may be exercised from time to time.

The assessee can make complains to Human Rights authority if harassment is caused to the family during raids or survey. Very recently the human right commission has observed that continuing search without any break at odd hours and forcing the assessee and or his family members to remain awake was a torturers act. The Patna High Court in CCIT v. State of Bihar, Through Chief Secretary (Rajendra Singh) (2012) 205 Taxman 232 / 71 DTR 268 / 250 CTR 304 upheld the decision of the human rights commission that interrogation till late night amounts to “torture” & violation of basic “human rights”

Searches should be carried out only in cases where there is credible evidence to indicate substantial unaccounted income/assets in relation to the tax normally paid by the assessee or where the expected concealment is more than Rs. 1 crore.

Section 132 of the Income-tax Act 1961 - Search & Seizure - matters relating thereto

F.No. 286/77/2003-IT(Inv.II)
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
Central Board of Direct Taxes

To

All Director Generals of Income-tax (Inv.)

Subject: Search & Seizure - matters relating thereto

Sir,

With a view to focus on high revenue yielding cases and to make the optimum use of manpower, the Board has decided that officers deployed in the Investigation Wing should restructure their activities. They should henceforth strictly adhere to the following guidelines :

(i) Searches should be carried out only in cases where there is credible evidence to indicate substantial unaccounted income/assets in relation to the tax normally paid by the assessee or where the expected concealment is more than Rs. 1 crore.

(ii) Search operation will also be mounted when there is evidence of hidden

unaccounted assets arising out of a conspiracy to cause public harm, terrorism, smuggling, narcotics, fraud, gangsterism, fake currency, fake stamp papers and such other manifestations;

(iii) Tax payers who are professionals of excellence should not be searched without there being compelling evidence and confirmation of substantial tax evasion.

2. Henceforth, search operations shall be authorized only by the concerned DGIT(Inv.) who will be accountable for the action initiated by the officers working under him. He should also ensure that all the work relating to search & seizure, like post-search enquires, preparation of appraisal report and handing over of seized books of accounts. Etc. should be completed by the Investigation Wing within a period of 60 days from the date on which the last of the authorisations for search was executed.

3. DGsIT(Inv.) are requested to ensure that officers of competence and proven integrity are taken in the Investigation Wing. The officers posted in the Investigation Wing will be trained at NADT in a special course for which arrangements will be separately made.

4. DGsIT(Inv.) are required to ensure strict compliance of the above guidelines/ instructions.

Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
Sharat Chandra
Director (Inv. II & III)

The person searched is not entitled to copy of reasons recorded by the department as it is privileged document And can not be shared with person searched. Only High Court and Supreme Court have that powers Dr. Pratap Singh 155 ITR 166 (SC)

Without referring to any incriminating material found during the course of search, no addition could be made in an assessment under section 153A of the Act in relation to an assessment year for which the assessment did not abate. Smt. Zeenat P. Sanghvi in ITA No. 8026/Mum/2010 dated 19/12/2014, All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 137 ITD 287/23 taxmann.com 103/(Mum) (SB), Gurinder Singh Bawa v. Dy. CIT [2012] 28 taxmann.com 328/[2014] 150 ITD 40 (Mum. - Trib.), CIT (Central) v. Murli Agro Products Ltd. [2014] 49 taxmann.com 172 (Bom.), Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corpn. (Nhava - Sheva) [2015] 58 taxmann.com 78 followed in Parag M. Sanghvi [2015] 63 taxmann.com 118 (Mumbai - Trib.) SEPTEMBER 30, 2015

Additional evidence, to further support assessee’s stand taken before the assessing officer that the valuation of its property is adversely affected as a result of restrictive use of its property for industrial purpose only for reflecting capital gain at lesser than stamp duty value for the purpose of S. 50C in Janakiram [2015] 63 taxmann.com 139 (Hyderabad - Trib.) JULY 8, 2015

SC decision on 05-11-2015 on 36(1)(iii) in the case of Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. The apex court observed that interest free advance to sister concern under margin money stipulation by bank for granting of loan to sister concern qualifies the test of commercial expediency. Further loan to director from bank account out of credit balance available on the day of advance can not be said to be advance from borrowed capital. Hence no disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii). Further SC reprimanded P&H High Court for disallowance by mentioning Abhishek Industries only without mentioning facts of the case. SC followed its own judgement in SA Builders 288ITR1 for test of commercial expediency and includes expenditure incurred otherwise than by legal obligation. SC also quoted Malyalam Plantation 53 ITR 140 which held that “for the purpose of business” is wider than “for the purpose of earning profits” SC further quoted Delhi High Court in Dalmia Cement 254 ITR 377 which held that for the purpose of business need not necessarily mean the business of assesee itself. SC also held that the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the Board of Directors and assume the role to decide how much is reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumstances of the case. It further held that no businessman can be compelled to maximize his profit and that the income tax authorities must put themselves in the shoes of the assessee and see how a prudent businessman would act. The authorities must not look at the matter from their own view point but that of a prudent businessman.