9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 497X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jurisdiction to appreciate evidentiary value of the books of accounts or materials or goods received from the other officer and proceed to make assessment in his own way. Therefore, satisfaction is not required to be recorded by the AO, who conducted the search before transferring materials found belonging to another assessee - Decided against assessee - WPC/2954/2011 - - - Dated:- 30-7-2012 - MR.JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. For Appellant: MS.ANITHA RAMACHANDRAN, MS.INDU SUSAN JACOB For Respondent: MR.JOSE JOSEPH, SC J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. The appellant, a Doctor, who is an assessee before the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kozhikkode, was assessed under Section 153C read with Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) based on evidence gathered in the course of search of another assessee at Mangalore. When the searched assessee's assessment was taken up under Section 153A, based on the information and materials gathered during search that Assessing Officer noticed that the part of the evidence collected and materials received during search of that assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the above Sections are for the assessment years 2003- 04 to 2008-09. The appellant has contested the validity of all the assessments. We first proceed to consider the challenge against the validity of the best judgment assessment completed for the assessment year 2009-10. The specific grievance of the appellant is that assessment for the assessment year 2009-10 is for the previous year in which search was made and therefore for that year Section 153A or Section 153C has no application. However, the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, which found acceptance with the learned Single Judge, is that though in the assessment order for the year 2009-10 all the connected Sections of the Act including Sections 153C and 153A are mentioned, it is in fact a best judgment assessment under Section 144 for failure of the assessee to file return for the said assessment year. Admittedly, assessment for the year 2009-10 has been made on 29/12/2010 along with the assessments taken up under Section 153C read with Section 153A for the six preceding assessment years. All the six assessments under these provisions are completed by separate orders along with separate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t assessment on merit in appeal before CIT (Appeals), which he can still do. 5. The remaining question to be considered is appellant's challenge against the assessments completed for the six assessment years from 2003-04 to 2008-09 under Section 153C read with Section 153A(1) on the ground that the Assessing Officer who conducted search on the assessee at Mangalore under Section 132 has not recorded the satisfaction as required under Section 153C before transferring the files to the Assessing Officer of the appellant to make assessments on the appellant under Section 153C read with Section 153A of the Act. While learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Manish Maheshwari v. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another, reported in 289 ITR 341, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue has relied on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Panchajanyam Management Agencies and Services, reported in 333 ITR 281 (Ker). We do not think there is any need to go to both these decisions because even though Section 153C is analogous to the previous provisions of Section 153BD, there is complete deviation in the new ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , do not find any merit in the contention of the appellant's counsel that satisfaction was not recorded by the Assessing Officer at Mangalore before transferring the materials and seized records to the appellant's Assessing Officer. In our view, if appellant's argument is accepted he could be placed in a worse position, because if his objections were considered and overruled while transferring the file by the Assessing Officer at Mangalore holding that goods seized or materials recovered really belong to him justifying assessment, the appellant will forfeit his right to raise same objection before his Assessing Officer who has to consider the relevance of the documents, accounts or other materials received from the Assessing Officer at Mangalore. The scope of Section 153C is such that assessment has to be strictly made only by the Assessing Officer before whom the assessee is regularly assessed because it is that Officer who is familiar with the transactions, income and regular assessment of the assessee for the preceding years' and based on the same to consider the relevance of materials or documents received from another Assessing Officer after hearing the assessee to consider su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
