2015 (10) TMI 2693 - AT - Income Tax

Jurisdiction u/s 153C - NO satisfaction note prepared by AO - Held that - Recording of satisfaction by the AO even in respect of the searched person was not fulfilled. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging the validity of proceedings under section 153C of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld.CIT(A) for the A.Y. 2003-04 to the A.Y. 2008-09. The search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act in the case of certain individuals led to proceedings being initiated against the assessee company under section 153C of the Act. The assessee challenged the legality and validity of these proceedings, specifically focusing on the absence of a mandatory satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) of the searched party. The contention was supported by replies obtained under the RTI Act, confirming the non-existence of a satisfaction note by the A.O. of the searched party. The absence of this satisfaction note, as required by law, was crucial for the A.O. of the assessee to assume jurisdiction under section 153C of the Act.

Precedents and Judgments:
The assessee relied on various judgments to support their argument, including cases like Friends Clearing Agency P.Ltd., Raj Enterprises vs. ITO, and others. Additionally, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court's judgment in the case of P.R.CIT-Central II vs. Aakash Arogya Mandir P.Ltd. was cited, emphasizing the importance of recording satisfaction by the A.O. of the searched person even in cases where the A.O. is the same for both the searched person and the assessee. The Court highlighted that satisfaction must be recorded separately for each entity.

Decision:
In line with the jurisprudence and legal requirements, the Tribunal quashed all assessment orders and dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The Cross Objections of the assessee were allowed, leading to the dismissal of all Revenue appeals. The judgment was pronounced on 29th October, 2015, in favor of the assessee based on the non-compliance with the legal requirement of recording satisfaction by the A.O. of the searched party.