9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 617X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd this note has been prepared even after 26th Nov., 2002. In the present case the revenue’s contention are not different from what they were in the main appeal, which was decided in the judgment reported as CIT V. Radhey Shayam Bansal (2011 (5) TMI 416 - DELHI HIGH COURT ). It is sought to be reported that the opinion formation contained in the letter dated 15.7.2003 accords with the opinion of Section 158BB. the appellant-revenue has not discharged the onus that there was valid satisfaction as required under Section 158 BD. Therefore, the irresistible conclusion is the pre-requisite of “satisfaction” as engrafted under Section 158B for the purpose of initiation of block assessment proceeding is non-existent or absent. - Decided against revenue. - ITA 578/2008, ITA 582/2008, ITA 583/2008 - - - Dated:- 7-1-2015 - MR. S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND MR. R.K.GAUBA, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Mr. Rohit Madan and Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Advs. For the Respondent : Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Vikas Jain and Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advs. MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) 1. The present appeal has been received on limited remit by the Hon ble Supreme Court which had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the file by the assessing officer of Manoj Aggarwal on 29.8.2002. This Court in para 24 of its judgment (reported as 2011 337 ITR 217) recorded in this regard as follows : The last plank of submission of learned counsel appearing for the revenue was a note that was recorded by the assessing officer of the Manoj Aggarwal on the date of assessment. It is contended by Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, learned senior counsel, Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Mr. Chandramani Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the revenue that though the said note was not filed before the tribunal but the same should be treated as a part of evidence on record and dealt with it. Whether that could have been taken as an additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure though such an application has not been filed. The same is not necessary in view of the finding recorded by the tribunal in SMC Share Brokers Ltd.(supra) in. In the said case, i.e., ITA No.250/Del/2005, the tribunal expressed the view that a satisfaction note by the assessing officer of the searched person recording undisclosed income of any person within the meaning of Section 158BD could be validly rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n this regard has been recorded in the case of this company and proposal for centralization of this case in this circle has been approved for taking up proceedings u/s 158BD. The last sentence in the above note indicates that the proposal for centralization of this case in this circle has been approved for taking up proceedings under Section 158BD. The learned Counsel pointed out before us that no such approval was taken before 29th Aug., 2002. According to him, the proposal is dt. 19th Sept., 2002, i.e. after the date of the office note. The office note cannot, therefore, mention any event, which has occurred later on, i.e., after 29th Aug., 2002. The fact that the proposal itself is dt. 19th May, 2002 could not be controverted by the learned Departmental Representative. 16. On going through the alleged office note available on pp. 202 to 226, it is found that the office note has been allegedly signed on 29th Aug., 2002 that is the date on which the assessment order in the case of M/s Friends Portfolio (P) Ltd. was completed. On closer scrutiny of the facts and circumstances mentioned above including the fact regarding the mention of satisfact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded by the Bench on p. 33 itself. 17. In view of the above, it is clear that on or before 29th Aug., 2002, the AO of M/s Friends Portfolio (P) Limited and that of Shri Manoj Aggarwal did not record any satisfaction. The note dt. 29th Aug., 2002 is, therefore, not to be taken for recording satisfaction required under Section 158BC/158BD. 4. This Court thereafter dealt with the revenue s contention with respect to the note said to have been made on 26.11.2002. the Court recorded specifically in para 25 that the said note pertaining to the case of SMC Share Brokers V. Dy. CIT which was the subject matter of another appeal decided in a judgment reported as Commissioner of Income Tax v. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. 288 ITR 345. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Calcutta Knitwear (supra) pertinently held as follows : 44. In the result, we hold that for the purpose of Section 158BD of the Act a satisfaction note is sine qua non and must be prepared by the assessing officer before he transmits the records to the other assessing officer who has jurisdiction over such other person. The satisfaction note could be prepared at either of the following stages: ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at there was evidence that cash was received by Manoj Aggarwal from the respondent and the summary of the amounts received as per the seized documents was given in Annexure C and the photocopies of the documents were annexed as Annexure-D. It is accepted that Annexures A, B, C D, referred to in this letter were not filed before the tribunal and have not been produced before us. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the revenue that they are also not available on the file of the Assessing Officer of the respondent. There is no explanation forthcoming with regard to the aforesaid annexures. It is well nigh impossible to know their content. The first paragraph of the letter dated 15th July, 2003 states that the respondent-assessee had acted as a mediator i.e. they had introduced Manoj Aggarwal with other persons to whom accommodation book entries were provided by Manoj Aggarwal. There is no allegation in the first paragraph that the respondent assessee was provided with accommodation book entries or the amounts belong to the respondent assessee. Book entries were provided to third parties. It is not stated in this satisfaction note that Manoj Aggarwal or third parties had paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
