2014 (2) TMI 1168 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of assessment u/s 158BD r.w.s. 158BC(c) - no satisfaction was recorded by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the non-searched person - Held that - For taking recourse to the block assessment under section 158BC in relation to the person not searched whenever search has been conducted under section 132 or the documents have been requisitioned under section 132A the Assessing Officer of the searched person needs to record his satisfaction that undisclosed income belongs to the person other than the person with respect to whom search was carried out under section 132 of the Act. He is also required to hand over the books of account or other documents or assets seized to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such non-searched person and thereafter the Assessing Officer who has jurisdiction would proceed under section 158BC against the person who has not been searched. In the instant case the Tribunal committed no error in upholding the version of the assessee-respondent. Recording of satisfaction under section 158BD being absent without assigning separate reasons in this case order impugned is upheld. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of notice under section 158BD of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Interpretation of the mandate given in section 158BD.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of notice under section 158BD:
The case involved a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, resulting in the seizure of incriminating documents related to the respondent-assessee. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 158BD read with section 158BC(c) for the block period. The assessee challenged the assessment, arguing that no satisfaction was recorded by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the non-searched person, as required by law. The court referred to a previous judgment and held that for block assessment under section 158BC involving a non-searched person, the Assessing Officer of the searched person must record satisfaction that the undisclosed income belongs to the non-searched person. As such satisfaction was absent in the present case, the Tribunal rightly quashed the notice and assessment order. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, citing the necessity of recording satisfaction under section 158BD.

2. Interpretation of the mandate in section 158BD:
The court addressed the issue of interpreting the mandate in section 158BD, emphasizing that the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer is a crucial requirement for initiating proceedings under this section. The court rejected the argument that no formal transfer order was needed when the Assessing Officer was the same for both the searched and non-searched persons. It reiterated that the satisfaction under section 158BD must be recorded specifically for the non-searched person, and the failure to fulfill this requirement renders the notice and assessment order invalid. The court found that the facts of the present case mirrored those of a previous judgment, and as the satisfaction under section 158BD was absent, the order impugned by the Revenue was upheld. The court dismissed the tax appeal, stating that all substantial questions of law had been adequately addressed and resolved.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the necessity of recording satisfaction by the Assessing Officer under section 158BD for block assessments involving non-searched persons. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision to quash the notice and assessment order due to the absence of such satisfaction, emphasizing the importance of strict adherence to legal requirements in tax assessments.