9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 432X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ramendra Jain, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Tejinder K. Joshi, Adv For the Respondent : Mr. Ravi Shankar, Advocate with Mr. B. M. Monga, Adv ORDER Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. This order shall shall dispose of ITA Nos.58 and 76 of 2009 as the issue involved in both the appeals is identical. However, the facts are being extracted from ITA No.58 of 2009. 2. ITA No.58 of 2009 has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act ) against the order dated 17.7.2008, Annexure A.III passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E', New Delhi in IT (SS) Nos.94/D/2005 for the block period ending 1987-88 to 1997-98, claiming following substantial questions of law:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing officer, he proceeded to initiate proceedings in the case of the assessee Shri Ajay Singh by issuing notice under section 158BD of the Act on 24.8.2001 after recording a satisfaction. The income of the assessee was assessed at ₹ 1,28,77,300/- vide order dated 29.8.2003, Annexure A.1 passed under section 158BC read with Section 158BD of the Act. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. Vide order dated 17.11.2004, Annexure A.II, the CIT (A) partly allowed the appeal upholding the proceedings initiated under section 158BD, order under sections 158BC and 158BD of the Act and addition of ₹ 30,37,272/- on account of amount spent by the assessee in the purchase o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and that Assessing Officer shall proceed against such other person and the provisions of this Chapter shall apply accordingly. 6. It was not disputed by the learned counsel for the revenue that there was no satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer of the searched person as required under Section 158BD of the Act. However, the satisfaction was recorded by the Assessing Officer of the assessee on 24.8.2001. In Manish Maheshwari vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and another, 289 ITR 341, while delving into identical situation, the Apex Court held as under:- The condition precedent for invoking a block assessment is that a search has been conducted under section 132, or documents or assets have been requisitioned under se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally valid requisite satisfaction. The operative portion of the order passed by the Tribunal reads thus:- 11. In this view of the matter, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manish Maheshwari (supra) and the decision of Coordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in the cases (supra) relied upon by the learned AR for the assessee, it is held that since the AO in the case of Shri Mangal Singh, father of the assessee,the person searched has not recorded any satisfaction as contemplated under section 158BD,the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer in the case of the assessee on 24.8.2001 before issuing notice under section 158BD on 4.8.2001 cannot be called to be legally valid requisite satisfactio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
