9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 412 - HC - Income TaxValidity of notice under Section 158-BD - Whether recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer of the person searched is a necessary ingredient to validate block assessment proceedings under Section 158-BD? - Held that - In the present case, as already noticed, the Revenue has been unable to produce the satisfaction note of the AO of the searched person, to the effect that there was cogent and demonstrative material to conclude that the seized documents showed undisclosed income belonging to the Assessee. The absence of such satisfaction note on the file also explains why the AO resorted to Section 147 of the Act to reopen the assessment in the first place instead of issuing notice under Section 158 BD of the Act. Consequently, on this short ground of there being no satisfaction note, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 158 BD of the Act, as explained by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Calcutta Knitwears (2014 (4) TMI 33 - SUPREME COURT), the entire block assessment proceedings are held to be bad in law. In the circumstances of the present case, the notice under Section 158-BD issued to the Assessee is held to be bad in law. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice under Section 158-BD. 2. Necessity of recording satisfaction by the Assessing Officer for block assessment proceedings under Section 158-BD. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the notice under Section 158-BD: The Assessee, a partnership firm, faced a search and seizure operation on 15th December 1997 at the premises of Mr. Kamal Chand Jain. Certain hundis issued by Mr. Jain, purportedly pertaining to the Assessee, were seized and forwarded to the Assessee's jurisdictional AO. Subsequently, a notice under Section 148 was issued to the Assessee on 29th January 2001, leading to a re-assessment order adding Rs. 65 lakhs to the Assessee's income under Section 69D. The CIT (A) held that the proceedings should have been initiated under Section 158 BA (1) and not under Section 147/143(3), allowing for fresh proceedings under Section 158BD if requirements under Section 158 BE (2) (b) were followed. The ITAT upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, and a notice under Section 158BD was issued on 25th September 2006. The Assessee filed a return and requested a satisfaction note, which was not provided. Despite this, the AO completed the block assessment on 29th September 2008, adding Rs. 6,85,120/-. The CIT (A) upheld this order, but the ITAT's Accountant Member (AM) found no satisfaction recorded by the AO, deeming the proceedings under Section 158 BD invalid. The Judicial Member (JM) disagreed, favoring the Revenue. The Third Member of the ITAT concluded that the Assessee failed to show the absence of a satisfaction note, thus satisfying Section 158BD requirements. However, the Revenue could not produce the satisfaction note at any stage, leading to the conclusion that the notice under Section 158-BD was bad in law. 2. Necessity of recording satisfaction by the Assessing Officer for block assessment proceedings under Section 158-BD: Section 158BD mandates that the AO of the searched person must record a satisfaction note indicating "cogent and demonstrated material" showing undisclosed income belonging to someone other than the searched person. The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Calcutta Knitwears emphasized the necessity of this satisfaction note before transmitting records to another AO. The satisfaction note can be prepared at various stages, including during or after the assessment proceedings of the searched person. In this case, the Revenue failed to produce the satisfaction note, which is a sine qua non for initiating proceedings under Section 158BD. The absence of such a note explains why the AO initially resorted to Section 147 instead of Section 158BD. The Court cited several precedents, including Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sunil Bhala and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Feather Breweries & Market, where the absence of a satisfaction note invalidated block assessment proceedings. The Court held that the absence of a satisfaction note invalidated the block assessment proceedings, answering both framed questions in the affirmative and in favor of the Assessee. The notice under Section 158-BD was deemed bad in law, and the block assessment proceedings were invalidated. Conclusion: The impugned orders of the JM, the Third Member, and the ITAT, along with corresponding orders of the AO and the CIT (A), were set aside. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
|
