9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 983 - AT - Income TaxValidity of assessment u/s 158BC r.w.s. 158D - valid satisfaction for the purpose of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 158BD - whether satisfaction has been recorded on the basis of incriminating seized documents scanned in the assessment order, by the AO who had jurisdiction over the case? - search u/s 132 - Held that - CIT(A) has given the categorical finding that the addition is not sustainable due to the detailed reasons given by the CIT(A) stating hat the name of the assessee viz., Shri Virender Bhatia does not appear on any of the pages mentioned in the Annexures as described in the satisfaction note. These annexures have also been examined by your goodself Valadity of notice issued u/s 158BD - no order dropping the proceedings initiated u/s 158BD of the Act dated 14/7/2005 was ever been served on the assessee - Held that - Once it is not disputed that no order dropping proceedings had been communicated to the assessee, it ought to have been held that notice issued u/s 158BD of the Act dated 22/7/2007 was without jurisdiction held by Hon ble Apex Court inc case of Trustees OF H. EH THE NIZAM S SUPPLEMENTAL FAMILY TRUST VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 2000 (2) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT The satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer as per Revenue is incorporated in the order sheet and not in the notice. Thus, it is not a valid satisfaction, as satisfaction u/s 158BD of the Act has to be recorded by the Assessing Officer of the searched person and not by the Assessing Officer of the other person i.e. assessee. Therefore, this satisfaction which was recorded in the order sheet and also not communicated to the assessee, is not a valid satisfaction, this preposition of the Ld. AR sustains. The contention of the Ld. DR is that the Assessing Officer is same for all the mentioned assessees do not permit/allow the Assessing Officer not to record satisfaction for each of the assessee separately. It is a mandate as per the provisions of the Act and cannot be overlooked. Therefore, the Assessing Officer does not have valid jurisdiction to frame the assessment. Thus, the cross objection of the assessee is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of block assessment under section 158BC read with section 158D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Jurisdiction and validity of notice issued under section 158BD. 3. Addition of undisclosed income amounting to ?2,44,58,812/-. 4. Reasonableness and timeliness of assessment proceedings. 5. Reliance on judicial pronouncements and their applicability to the case. 6. Satisfaction note and its recording for the initiation of proceedings under section 158BD. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Block Assessment under Section 158BC Read with Section 158D: The Revenue's appeal challenges the CIT(A)'s decision to invalidate the block assessment under section 158BC read with section 158D. The CIT(A) found that the assessment was invalid due to the lack of proper satisfaction recorded on the basis of incriminating documents. The Tribunal upheld this finding, emphasizing that the satisfaction note must be recorded by the Assessing Officer of the searched person, which was not done in this case. 2. Jurisdiction and Validity of Notice Issued under Section 158BD: The assessee argued that the notice issued on 27/7/2007 under section 158BD was invalid as no prior order dropping the proceedings initiated on 14/7/2005 was served. The Tribunal agreed, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Trustees of H.H.H. The Nizam’s Supplemental Family Trust vs. CIT, which mandates that satisfaction must be recorded by the Assessing Officer of the searched person. The Tribunal found that the satisfaction was recorded after the completion of the assessment of the searched person, making it invalid. 3. Addition of Undisclosed Income Amounting to ?2,44,58,812/-: The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ?2,44,58,812/- based on seized documents indicating unaccounted cash transactions. The CIT(A) found that the documents were already considered in the case of M/s Baani Technologies Pvt. Ltd., where the addition was deleted. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the documents were "dumb" and incapable of any interpretation without corroborative evidence. 4. Reasonableness and Timeliness of Assessment Proceedings: The CIT(A) and the Tribunal both found that the assessment proceedings were not initiated within a reasonable time. The Tribunal noted that the notice under section 158BD was issued 25 months after the completion of the assessment of the searched person, which is beyond a reasonable period. The Tribunal cited the case of Radhey Shyam Bansal vs. ACIT, where a similar delay was deemed unreasonable. 5. Reliance on Judicial Pronouncements and Their Applicability: The Revenue's reliance on judicial pronouncements like Manoj Maheshwari and Amity Hotels Pvt. Limited was found to be misplaced by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. The Tribunal emphasized that the facts of the present case were different, and the cited cases did not support the Revenue's position. 6. Satisfaction Note and Its Recording: The Tribunal found that the satisfaction note was not properly recorded by the Assessing Officer of the searched person, as required under section 158BD. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT vs. Manish Maheshwari, which mandates that the satisfaction must be recorded by the Assessing Officer of the searched person. The Tribunal concluded that the proceedings initiated without fulfilling this mandatory precondition were without jurisdiction. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and allowed the assessee's cross-objection, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to invalidate the block assessment and delete the addition of undisclosed income. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of proper jurisdiction, timely initiation of proceedings, and valid satisfaction notes in upholding the principles of the Income Tax Act.
|
