9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (6) TMI 630 - AT - Income TaxBlock assessment search undisclosed income - assessment orders under section 158BC were passed in these cases on 6-7-2007 - satisfaction note/letter was written on 13.7.2007 - Revenue has placed no material on record to show any undisclosed income Held that - in the case of Mukta Metal Works (2011 (2) TMI 250 (HC)) was held that according to the provisions of section 158BD of the Act the satisfaction has to be recorded between the initiation of the proceedings u/s 158BC and before completion of block assessment u/s 158BC of the Act in the case of person searched. It could not be after the conclusion of the block assessment as there was no occasion for an AO to examine the seized material or documents of the person searched when the block assessment proceedings had concluded and no other proceedings were pending before him. order passed was contrary to the provisions of section 158BD of the Act and needs to be quashed. Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction under Section 158BD. 2. Timeliness of the block assessment order. 3. Merits of the addition of Rs. 2,78,40,000/-. 4. Adequacy of opportunity for the appellant to be heard. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction under Section 158BD: The appellant contended that the block assessment proceedings initiated under Section 158BD were invalid as they were not based on objective satisfaction or cogent materials seized during the search. The appellant argued that the Assessing Officer (AO) making the block assessment must be satisfied that undisclosed income belongs to a person other than the one searched, and such satisfaction must be recorded. The appellant highlighted that the documents provided by the AO, including a letter dated 13.7.2007 and the order sheet dated 3.9.2007, did not indicate any recorded satisfaction. The Tribunal found that the satisfaction note was recorded after the completion of assessment of the original persons searched (Shri Nirmal A. Banwani and Late Shri Pravin M. Shah), thus violating the requirement that such satisfaction must be recorded during the block assessment proceedings of the searched person. Citing various precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the satisfaction note was non-existent in law, rendering the proceedings under Section 158BD invalid and void ab initio. 2. Timeliness of the Block Assessment Order: The appellant argued that the block assessment order dated 29.9.2009 was time-barred. The Tribunal noted that the block assessments for Shri Nirmal A. Banwani and Late Shri Pravin M. Shah were completed on 6.7.2007, and the satisfaction note was recorded on 13.7.2007. The Tribunal referenced the Special Bench decision in Manoj Aggarwal, which held that the satisfaction must be recorded within the time limit for completing the block assessment under Section 158BC. Since the satisfaction note was recorded after the completion of the block assessments, the Tribunal held that the proceedings were time-barred and invalid. 3. Merits of the Addition of Rs. 2,78,40,000/-: The appellant contended that the addition of Rs. 2,78,40,000/- was made on mere suspicion without any proof. The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of this issue, as it had already quashed the assessment on jurisdictional grounds. 4. Adequacy of Opportunity for the Appellant to be Heard: The appellant argued that the AO passed the order without granting adequate opportunity to be heard, violating the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal did not address this issue separately, as the assessment was quashed on jurisdictional grounds. Conclusion: The Tribunal quashed the assessment order on the grounds that the satisfaction note required under Section 158BD was recorded after the completion of the block assessments of the original persons searched, rendering the proceedings invalid and void ab initio. Consequently, other grounds raised by the appellant were treated as infructuous. The appeal was partly allowed.
|
