9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (8) TMI 190 - HC - Income TaxValidity of notice u/s 158BD - Search operation done against petitioner s husband - Certain income found belonging to petitioner - Held that - When notice under Section 158BD was issued against the petitioner, assessment order of petitioner s husband was not in existence - On the date of issuing notice under Section 158BD of the Act, there was no satisfaction recorded by the Assessing officer of the searched person - The conditions precedent for invoking the provisions of section 158BD, thus are required to be satisfied before the provisions of the said Chapter are applied in relation to any person other than the person whose premises had been searched or whose documents and other assets had been requisitioned under section 132A - Following decision of Manish Maheshwari Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax and another 2007 (2) TMI 148 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Decided in favour of Assessee.
Issues:
1. Challenge to notice dated 29.10.2001 under Section 158BD of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Challenge to further notice dated 18.01.2002 reminding the petitioner to file a return. 3. Lack of satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer for issuing notice under Section 158BD. 4. Allegations of delay in issuing the notice. 5. Allegations of non-application of mind in issuing the notice. 6. Reliance on an undated note by the Assessing Officer indicating undisclosed income belonging to the petitioner. 7. Validity of the notice under Section 158BD in the absence of recorded satisfaction. 8. Interpretation of the conditions precedent for invoking Section 158BD. Analysis: The petitioner challenged two notices issued under Section 158BD of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated 29.10.2001 and 18.01.2002, respectively. The main contention raised was the lack of recorded satisfaction by the Assessing Officer that any undisclosed income belonged to the petitioner, other than the person searched. The petitioner argued that without such satisfaction, the notice under Section 158BD could not have been issued. The court examined the timeline of events, noting that the notice against the petitioner was issued after a significant delay following the search operation on the husband of the petitioner in 1999. The court emphasized the importance of the Assessing Officer's satisfaction as a prerequisite for issuing such notices. The respondent, on the other hand, relied on an undated note by the Assessing Officer suggesting undisclosed income belonging to the petitioner. However, the court highlighted that this note, produced along with an affidavit-in-reply, was not in existence when the notice was issued against the petitioner. The court emphasized that for the notice under Section 158BD to be valid, there must be a recorded satisfaction by the Assessing Officer at the time of issuing the notice. The court referenced a Supreme Court decision to underscore the conditions precedent for invoking Section 158BD, emphasizing the necessity of satisfaction being recorded before applying the provisions of the Act to any person other than the one searched. Ultimately, the court found that there was no recorded satisfaction by the Assessing Officer at the time of issuing the notice under Section 158BD. Consequently, the court struck down the impugned notices, thereby upholding the petitioner's challenge. This decision rendered further examination of other contentions unnecessary, and the court made the rule absolute without any cost implications.
|
