SALIL KAPOOR, J.M.: This appeal filed by assessee is directed against assessment order passed under s.158BC r/w s. 144, dt. 23rd Jan., 1998. first ground of assessee is that block assessment order was passed beyond time permitted by law and same was time-barred and hence illegal and invalid. brief facts, as stated and as borne from records are that search had taken place at residence-cum-office No. 702-A, 7th Floor, Amrit Bldg., Cater Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai on 18th Dec., 1996 and continued till 19th Dec., 1996. As per copy of F. No. 45 (authorisation warrant) filed by learned CIT- Departmental Representative, search had taken place in lieu of warrant of authorization dt. 17th Dec., 1996. Certain papers, files, etc. were seized. Locker keys of locker No. 1719 of Hongkong Bank and locker No. 1415 of Grindlays Bank were also seized and Panchnama was drawn on 19th Dec., 1996 (copy of Panchnama is placed at Departmental Representative s paper book pp. 1 and 2). It was mentioned in Panchanma that search has been temporarily concluded. Two warrants of authorization (as per copies filed by CIT-Departmental Representative) were issued on 23rd Dec., 1996 with regard to each of said lockers for which keys were seized on 19th Dec., 1996. Locker No. 1719 of Hongkong Bank was searched on 23rd Dec., 1996 which was found to be empty and Panchnama was drawn on that date which mentioned that search was finally concluded. copy of said Panchnama is at pp. 3 and 4 of Revenue s paper book. Locker No. 1415 of Grindlays Bank was also searched on 23rd Dec., 1996 where jewellery worth Rs. 6.99 lakhs was found inventory was prepared and valuation was done. Panchnama was drawn on 23rd Dec., 1996 and same is placed in paper book of Departmental Representative at pp. 5 and 6. It was mentioned in said Panchnama that search is finally concluded. jewellery found in locker No. 1415 was brought to said residence on 23rd Dec., 1996 and was placed in alimirah in bedroom and prohibitory order (P.O.) was clamped which is at p. 99 of assessee s paper book. Panchnama was prepared to said effect on 23rd Dec., 1996 at residence which is placed at Departmental Representative s paper book pp. 7 and 8. statement of assessee under s.132(4) was recorded on 23rd Dec., 1996 and question was asked to assessee to explain source of jewellery. In reply to said question assessee had stated that most of jewellery was gift from wife s parents and some jewellery has been purchased after 31st March, 1 9 9 6 and sought some time to produce purchase bill. (Copy of said statement is at pp. 23 to 28 of Departmental Representative s paper book). There is no mention of said statement in Panchnama prepared at residence on 23rd Dec., 1996. On 10th Jan., 1997, another statement of assessee was recorded under s. 131 and at that time no question was asked with regard to jewellery. On 30th Jan., 1997, search party again visited residence-cum-office of assessee and lifted P.O. and released jewellery. Statement of assessee was recorded, in which he stated that he has produced purchase bills of jewellery of Rs. 1,50,000 and balance jewellery is gifts from friends and relatives and fans on various occasions and some of jewellery belongs to his late mother. However, he requested search party not to seize jewellery and voluntarily offered Rs. 4 lakhs as income on account of jewellery over and above his earlier offer of Rs. 20 lakhs. copy of statement is at p. 45 of Departmental Representative s paper book. Panchnama was drawn on 30th Jan., 1997 and it was mentioned that search was finally concluded. Copy of said Panchnama is at pp. 9 and 10 of paper book of learned Departmental Representative. assessment has been completed vide order dt. 23rd Jan., 1998. main plea of assessee is that time limitation for purpose of s. 158BE starts from 23rd Dec., 1996 and block assessment order could have been passed on or before 31st Dec., 1997 as per provisions of s. 158BE(1)(a) i.e. within one year from end of month in which last of authorizations of search under s. 132 was executed. Accordingly, block assessment order passed on 23rd Dec., 1998 was barred by time limitation. Whereas plea of Revenue is that time limitation will start from 30th Jan., 1997 and assessment order passed on 23rd Jan., 1998 is within time provided under s. 158BE(1)(a). learned counsel for assessee, Shri Hiro Rai, has raised various arguments in support of his claim that assessment was barred by time limitation. first argument raised by learned counsel is that clamping of P.O. on 23rd Dec., 1996 was not valid as search was concluded on that day itself. jewellery in one of lockers was worth Rs. 6.99 lakhs and total jewellery kept under P.O., including jewellery found at residence was Rs. 8.67 lakhs. There was no justification for imposing P.O. for such small amount of jewellery keeping in view status of family and CBDT s instructions with regard to seizure of jewellery during search. For this proposition, he relied on decision of CIT vs. Mrs. Sandhya P. Naik (2002) 178 CTR (Bom) 448: (2002) 253 ITR 534 (Bom). He further stated that decision of Special Bench in case of C. Ramaiah Reddy vs. Asstt. CIT (2003) 81 TTJ (Bang)(SB) 1044: (2003) 87 ITD 439 (Bang)(SB) is not binding on Tribunal sitting at Mumbai. Mumbai Benches had to follow decision of Mrs. Sandhya P. Naik (supra) as same being of jurisdictional High Court. He further stated that matter had gone in appeal before Hon ble Bombay High Court in case of Mrs. Sandhya Naik (supra) and matter was adjudicated in favour of assessee. He stated that if matter can be decided in appeal by Bombay High Court, then Tribunal should also look into legality of P.O. in appeal filed under statute. He also submitted that this aspect was never looked into by Special Bench in case of C. Ramaiah Reddy (supra). second argument raised by learned counsel for assessee is that no seizure was made on 30th Jan., 1997 and as such Panchnama dt. 30th Jan., 1997 was invalid, hence time for purpose of limitation shall start from 23rd Dec., 1996. For this proposition, he placed reliance upon case of Sarb Consulate Marine Products (P) Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT (2006) 99 TTJ (Del) 732: (2005) 97 ITD 333 (Del). third argument of learned counsel is that no search had taken place on 30th Jan., 1997 and as such search was completed on 23rd Dec., 1996 when jewellery was listed and valued. search was completed on 23rd Dec., 1996, as on 30th Jan., 1997, only P.O. was lifted and jewellery was released. No search proceedings were undertaken as on 31st Jan., 1997. For this proposition he mainly relied on following case law: (i) Dy. CIT vs. Adolf Patric Pinto ITA No. 215/Mum/2001 [reported at (2006) 101 TTJ (Mumbai) 1086 Ed.]; (ii) Neena Wadhwa vs. Dy. CIT (2003) 128 TAXMAN 149 (Del)(Mag); (iii) M. Sivaramakrishnaiah & Co. vs. Asstt. CIT (2005) 93 TTJ (Visakha) 1035. fourth argument is that as per s. 158BE(1) assessment order could b e passed within one year from end of month in which last of authorizations for search was executed. In this case last of authorizations was dt. 23rd Dec., 1996 and said authorization was executed on same day at Grindlays Bank and it was stated in Panchnama prepared that search was finally concluded. He further stated that Expln. 2 to s. 158BE also relates to authorization referred in sub-s. (1). There were three authorizations issued in case of assessee. first authorization was issued on 17th Dec., 1996 in respect of residence-cum-office of company and second and third authorizations were issued on 23rd Dec., 1996 with respect to two lockers of assessee. Both authorizations dt. 23rd Dec., 1996 were executed on same day and same is clear from Panchnamas prepared whereas Panchnama dt. 30th Jan., 1997 was with reference to first authorization i.e. dt. 17th Dec., 1996. As such, it is clear from facts of this case that last of authorizations i.e. authorization dt. 23rd Dec., 1996 was executed on that very day, hence time limitation for purpose of s. 158BE(1) would start from 23rd Dec., 1996. learned CIT-Departmental Representative, Girish Dave, vehemently opposed arguments of learned counsel for assessee and stated that action of imposing P.O. under s. 132(3) is administrative action. It is discretion of authorized officer whether to seize any valuable or to impose P.O. under s. 132(3) which is administrative action. Such administrative action of AO cannot be subject-matter of appeal before Tribunal and it is beyond purview of Tribunal to adjudicate on validity of such P.O. He relied on decision of Special Bench in case of C. Ramaiah Reddy (supra), and also on recent decision of Delhi High Court in case of M.B. Lal vs. CIT (2005) 199 CTR (Del) 571: (2005) 279 ITR 298 (Del). He stated that decision of Special Bench is binding on Tribunal. He further stated that even if it is presumed that action of authorized officer in passing order under s. 132(3) was wrong, even then it cannot limit powers of AO who is completing block assessment. According to him powers of authorized officer conducting search and powers of AO completing assessment are separate and exclusive of each other. He further stated that judgment of Mrs. Sandhaya P. Naik (supra) case was duly considered by Special Bench in case of C. Ramaiah Reddy (supra). He further stated that decision of Mrs. Sandhya P. Naik (supra) was in context that Panchnama was prepared by officer who was not authorized officer. Shri Dave stated that in absence of seizure, it cannot be held that Panchnama prepared on 30th Jan., 1997 was invalid. There is no condition that there must be seizure in order to draw valid Panchnama. Panchnama is summary of all proceedings undertaken during search and there is no condition that there has to be seizure. Shri Dave stated that when jewellery was brought to residence from locker on 23rd Dec., 1996 and P.O. was clamped, it was mentioned in Panchnama that search was temporarily concluded. At that time statement of assessee was also recorded and question was asked regarding source of jewellery. In reply to said question assessee stated he needs sometime to produce copies of bills of jewellery purchased. It was in this background that P.O. was clamped and time was given to assessee to produce evidence with regard to purchase of jewellery. assessee had himself asked for time which was given by authorized officer and as such P.O. order under s. 132(3) cannot be held as unjustified. Moreover, there was no inordinate delay as P.O. was lifted on 31st Jan., 1997 and as such it cannot be held that P.O. was clamped in order to prolong search. action of authorized officer on 30th Jan., 1997 was extension of search continued from 18th Dec., 1996 and 23rd Dec., 1996. assessee was again asked question about jewellery on 30th Jan., 1997 and in reply to question No. 4 he admitted that he could only explain part of jewellery and requested not to seize jewellery and agreed to surrender Rs. 4 lakhs. It was at instance of assessee that jewellery was released on 30th Jan., 1997 and now it is not open to him to say that authorized officer did something incorrect by releasing jewellery which could have been seized. learned CIT-Departmental Representative, Shri Dave stated that for purpose of s. 158BE what is required to be seen is that when was last of authorizations was executed. He stated that term "execute" means when job assigned is accomplished or completed. For this proposition he relied on Law Lexicon and on case of Jaya S. Shetty vs. Asstt. CIT (1999) 64 TTJ (Mumbai) 551: (1999) 69 ITD 336 (Mumbai). He further stated that action carried on by authorized officer under s. 132(1) is single, continuous and homogenous process with various stages and for this proposition he relied on decision of State of Maharashtra vs. Narayan Champalal Bajaj & Anr. (1993) 201 ITR 315 (Bom). Shri Girish Dave drew our attention to three authorization warrants issued in this case. authorization warrant dt. 17th Dec., 1996 in respect of residence of assessee were used on 18th Dec., 1996, 23rd Dec., 1996 and 30th Jan., 1997, whereas authorization warrants dt. 23rd Dec., 1996 in respect of two bank lockers and were used only on 23rd Dec., 1996. He stated that this very fact makes it clear that authorization warrant dt. 17th Dec., 1996 was last executed on 30th Jan., 1997. Hence, limitation would start from 30th Jan., 1997. Shri Dave stated as per s. 158BE(1), limitation shall start from end of month in which last of authorizations was executed. He stated that what is required to be looked into is not last authorization but last of authorizations, which means that all authorizations issued are to be treated as common kitty and last date of execution of any of authorizations should be taken as starting point for purpose of limitation for completion of should be taken as starting point for purpose of limitation for completion of assessment. He stated that Expln. 2 to s. 158BE refers to last Panchnama drawn and last Panchnama in this case was drawn on 30th Jan., 1997. Shri Dave further stated that decision in case of Neena Wadhwa, supra, is prior to decision of Special Bench in case of C. Ramaiah Reddy (supra) and as such same should not be relied upon. He stated that in case of assessee P.O. was passed at instance of assessee as he needed time to produce evidence in support of his claim of purchase of jewellery after 31st March, 1996. During rebuttal, learned counsel for assessee, Shri Hiro Rai, contended that it is wrongly stated by Revenue that P.O. was imposed at instance of assessee. In fact, P.O. was clamped earlier and said statement was recorded later. He drew our attention to Panchnama dt. 23rd Dec., 1996 drawn at residence of assessee (pp. 7 and 8 of Departmental Reresentative s paper book) and stated that col. No. 6 of Panchnama which refers to statement recorded during search, is blank. It does not state that any statement was recorded upto time of preparing said Panchnama, whereas col. No. 9 refers to order under s. 132(3). He further stated that said Panchnama mentions that proceedings were closed on 23rd Dec., 1996 at 9 PM, whereas statement was recorded after 9 PM, as it is clear from statement that only first three pages were signed on 23rd Dec., 1996 and balance three pages were signed on 24th Dec., 1996 which clearly shows that statement was recorded around midnight and much after P.O. was clamped and that is why there is no mention of said statement in Panchnama dt. 23rd Dec., 1996 which is record of search proceedings. As such it is wrong to say on part of Revenue that P.O. was clamped t instance of assessee and P.O. cannot be justified on said basis. He further stated that total jewellery found was of Rs. 8.67 lakhs and search could not have been kept pending for such small amount of jewellery particularly in view of instructions of CBDT that jewellery upto 500 grams in respect of each lady should not be seized and similarly some small concession has also been given for each male member of house. Shri Hiro Rai also stated that last of authorizations was dt. 23rd Dec., 1996 in respect of locker and same was executed on that day itself. It is clear from Panchnama 23rd Dec., 1996 prepared after search of locker which states that search was concluded. We have given anxious consideration to arguments given by both parties and have also gone through documents placed in paper books. In beginning, we shall deal with last argument raised by counsel for assessee to support his claim that assessment made is barred by time limitation. Admittedly, three authorization warrants were issued. first authorization warrant in respect of residence-cum-office was issued on 17th Dec., 1996 and subsequently two authorization warrants in respect of two lockers, whose keys were found at residence of assessee, were issued on 23rd Dec., 1996. search was conducted at residence of assessee o n 18th Dec., 1996 and continued till 19th Dec., 1996 and was temporarily concluded. Thereafter, search was conducted at two lockers of assessee on 23rd Dec., 1996 and was concluded on that day. Jewellery found at one locker was brought to residence of assessee on that very day i.e. 23rd Dec., 1 9 9 6 and P.O. was imposed and fresh Panchnama was prepared at residence, and it was mentioned in that Panchnama that search was temporarily concluded. On 30th Jan., 1997, P.O. was lifted and jewellery was released and another Panchnama was drawn in which it was mentioned that search was finally concluded. question before us to be considered is when was last of authorisations for search issued under s. 132 was executed, for purpose of s. 158BE. relevant provisions of s. 158BE and Expln. 2 are reproduced below: "158BE order under s. 158BC shall be passed (a) within one year from end of month in which last of authorizations for search under s . 132 or for requisition under s. 132A, as case may be, was executed in cases where search is initiated or books of accounts or other documents or any assets are requisitioned after 30th day of June, 1995, but before 1st day of January, 1997; Explanation 2: For removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that authorization referred to in sub-s. (1) shall be deemed to have been executed (a) in case of search, on conclusion of search as recorded in last Panchnama drawn in relation to any person in whose case warrant of authorization has been issued; (b) in case requisition under s. 132A, on actual receipt of books of accounts or other documents or assets by authorised officer. From bare reading of s. 158BE it is clear that assessment has to be concluded under s. 158BC, in cases where search is initiated after 30th June, 1996 but before 1st June, 1997, within one year from end of month in which last of authorizations for search under s. 132 was executed. Expln. 2 to s. 158BE was inserted by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 with retrospective effect from 1st July, 1995, which makes it clear that authorization referred to sub-s. (1) of s. 158BE shall be deemed to have been executed on conclusion of search as recorded in last Panchnama drawn i n relation to any person in whose case warrant of authorization has been issued. said Explanation is with regard to authorization referred to in sub-s. (1) which refers to last of authorizations, which means that last of Panchnama has to be taken into account in respect of last of authorizations for search, as there could be more than one Panchnama in respect of same authorization. crux of matter remains that limitation shall start from end of month in which last of authorizations is executed. In case of assessee three authorizations were issued, one on 17th Dec., 1996 and two on 23rd Dec., 1996, as such there cannot be any doubt that last authorization in relation to assessee was issued on 23rd Dec., 1996. authorizations dt. 23rd Dec., 1996 were in respect of two lockers of assessee whose keys were found during search at residence of assessee. One locker was found to be empty and in second locker some jewellery was found which was inventorised and got valued from approved valuer and it was brought to residence of assessee. It was mentioned in Panchnama drawn at both lockers on 23rd Dec., 1996 that search was finally concluded. jewellery was brought home and P.O. was clamped and then another Panchnama was drawn at residence. authorizations issued on 23rd Dec., 1996 were with regard to two lockers and were executed on same day. This fact is also clear from Panchnamas drawn at time of search of lockers which clearly state that search has been concluded. copies of authorization warrants clearly show that authorization dt. 17th Dec., 1996 was in respect of residence-cum-office of assessee and it was used on 18th Dec., 1996, 23rd Dec., 1996 and on 30th Jan., 1997. authorizations dt. 23rd Dec., 1996 were in respect of two lockers and same could not have been used to enter residence of assessee on 23rd Dec., 1996 as such it is clear that P.O. was clamped at residence on 23rd Dec., 1996 in execution of authorization warrant dt. 17th Dec., 1996. copies of authorizations dt. 23rd Dec., 1996 clearly shows that same were used only once for purpose of searching lockers on 23rd Dec., 1996. We do not agree with contentions of learned CIT-Departmental Representative that all authorizations are to be treated as common kitty and last date of any of authorizations should be taken as starting point for purpose of limitation. s. 158BE clearly states that limitation will start from end of month in which last of authorizations was executed. It presupposes that there can be situation where more than one authorizations for search under s. 132 are issued and execution of last of such authorizations is to be considered as starting point for purpose of limitation. It clearly refers to last authorization in case where more than one authorizations are issued. As such, it cannot be held that all authorizations issued should be treated as common kitty and any one of authorizations which is executed at end should be considered for purpose of limitation. In view of above facts and legal position, we hold that last of authorizations issued in case of assessee dt. 23rd Dec., 1996 was executed on that day itself. assessment was required to be concluded within one year from end of month in which last of authorizations was executed, meaning thereby that as per provision of s. 158BE assessment was required to be completed by 31st Dec., 1997. Hence assessment order passed under s. 158BC on 23rd Jan., 1998 was barred by time limitation and same is quashed. Having quashed assessment being barred by time limitation, on basis of one of contentions raised, we do not see any need to go into other issues raised by both parties as same will only be academic exercise. We also see no reason to go into merits of case which have been raised in other grounds of appeal as assessment has been quashed on legal issue. In result, appeal of assessee is allowed. *** SHAHRUKH KHAN v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX