2010 (5) TMI 464 - AT - Income Tax

Block assessment proceedings - AO did not found any undisclosed income from the seized record of the persons searched, but he has initiated the block assessment proceedings just to examine the veracity of the creation/source of investment - block assessment proceedings can be initiated only for assessment of undisclosed income found as a result of search and not for the verification of capital accretion or source of investment - observation not tenable in view of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Maheshwari 2007 (2) TMI 148 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA wherein held that satisfaction must be recorded by the AO that any undisclosed income belongs to any person other than the person with respect to whom search was made u/s 132 of the Act - matter remanded to regular Bench for deciding the appeals in conformity with the opinion of the majority

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in annulling the Block Assessment Orders under section 158BD of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer (AO) for initiating proceedings under section 158BD.
3. Examination of the veracity of capital creation/source of investment as a basis for initiating Block Assessment proceedings.
4. The procedural correctness of the satisfaction recorded by the AO and the timing of such recording.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in annulling the Block Assessment Orders under section 158BD:
The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) annulled the block assessment orders on the grounds that the AO recorded reasons for the initiation of proceedings under section 158BD in a casual and irresponsible manner. Specifically, the AO could not have recorded that the examination of seized books and documents revealed undisclosed income before even issuing a notice under section 158BC to start proceedings in the cases of the searched entities. The CIT(A) concluded that the jurisdiction to assess the appellant under section 158BD was assumed for incorrect and invalid reasons, rendering all subsequent proceedings invalid.

2. Validity of the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer (AO) for initiating proceedings under section 158BD:
The Tribunal's Judicial Member (J.M.) confirmed the CIT(A)'s findings, stating that the AO's order sheets dated 4.9.2003 and 5.9.2003 did not reveal the required satisfaction under section 158BD. The AO's notes only aimed to examine the veracity of capital creation/source of investment, not undisclosed income. The absence of recorded satisfaction meant the block assessment proceedings were invalid, as supported by the Supreme Court decision in Manish Maheshwari v. ACIT, which requires explicit satisfaction that undisclosed income belongs to a person other than the one searched.

3. Examination of the veracity of capital creation/source of investment as a basis for initiating Block Assessment proceedings:
The J.M. emphasized that the AO's intention to verify capital creation or investment sources does not justify invoking section 158BD. Block assessment proceedings should focus on assessing undisclosed income found during a search, not on verifying capital accretion or investment sources. The satisfaction recorded on 4.9.2003 did not indicate any undisclosed income, thus failing to meet the legal requirements for initiating proceedings under section 158BD.

4. The procedural correctness of the satisfaction recorded by the AO and the timing of such recording:
The Accountant Member (A.M.) argued that the Tribunal should not go beyond the grounds of appeal of the Revenue and that the AO's satisfaction, whether recorded in the file of the searched person or the assessee, was immaterial. However, the J.M. and the Vice President disagreed, citing the Supreme Court and High Court decisions that mandate satisfaction to be recorded during the block assessment proceedings of the searched person. The satisfaction recorded on 4.9.2003, before the commencement of block assessment proceedings on 5.9.2003, was deemed invalid. The Vice President concluded that the satisfaction must be objective and recorded in the block assessment order of the searched person, not based on assumptions or procedural irregularities.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal, aligning with the J.M.'s view, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to annul the block assessment orders. The satisfaction required under section 158BD was not properly recorded, and the proceedings initiated based on such satisfaction were invalid. The matter will now return to the regular Bench for final decision-making in conformity with the majority opinion.