2010 (8) TMI 731 - AT - Income Tax

Recording of satisfaction and handing over of the records as per section 158BD - block assessments - Jurisdiction - legal plea raised by the assessees in their appeals in respect of recalling the order and again hearing of this very same issue would amount to wastage of time and energy. Therefore, we amend the Tribunal order in question by allowing the legal plea holding that the assessment orders under section 158BD in both these cases are without assumption of valid jurisdiction and need to be quashed. Consequently, we quash the block assessments in both these cases and allow the appeals in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Maheshwari (2007 -TMI - 2889 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) , petitions are allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Recording of "satisfaction" by the Assessing Officer.
2. Handing over of seized material.
3. Validity of proceedings under section 158BD.
4. Rectification of Tribunal's order under section 254(2).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Recording of "satisfaction" by the Assessing Officer:
The assessees contended that there was no recording of "satisfaction" by the Assessing Officer of the searched persons, as mandated by section 158BD of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer did not record his satisfaction that the undisclosed income belonged to the assessees. The Tribunal emphasized that the satisfaction must be based on specific and concrete material found during the search, as per the Supreme Court's decision in *Manish Maheshwari v. Asst. CIT [2007] 289 ITR 341*. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction was not recorded in the assessment order of the "searched party," thus failing to meet the prerequisite conditions of section 158BD.

2. Handing over of seized material:
The assessees argued that the seized documents were not handed over by the Assessing Officer of the "searched person" to the Assessing Officer of the "other person." The Tribunal confirmed that no such handover occurred, which is a mandatory requirement under section 158BD. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer of the assessees initiated action based on his satisfaction rather than the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer of the "searched party." This procedural lapse rendered the proceedings invalid.

3. Validity of proceedings under section 158BD:
The Tribunal examined whether the proceedings under section 158BD were validly initiated. The Tribunal found that the prerequisite conditions, such as recording of satisfaction and handing over of seized material, were not fulfilled. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in *Manish Maheshwari*, which mandates these conditions for invoking section 158BD. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the assessment orders under section 158BD in both cases lacked valid jurisdiction and needed to be quashed.

4. Rectification of Tribunal's order under section 254(2):
The assessees filed miscellaneous applications for rectification of the Tribunal's order, arguing that the Tribunal did not consider the Supreme Court's decision in *Manish Maheshwari*. The Tribunal acknowledged that the issue regarding recording of satisfaction and handing over of records was not dealt with in its original order. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in *Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 295 ITR 466*, which allows rectification of mistakes apparent from the record. The Tribunal concluded that the omission constituted a mistake apparent from the record and rectified its order accordingly, quashing the block assessments.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous petitions, holding that the assessment orders under section 158BD were without valid jurisdiction due to the failure to record satisfaction and hand over seized material as required by law. The Tribunal's rectification was based on the Supreme Court's interpretation in *Manish Maheshwari*, ensuring compliance with the statutory provisions and judicial precedents.

← Previous Next →