9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1648X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and during the search, documents were seized which showed that Mr. Rashid I. Nandolia and Mr. Rafik I Nandolia were having share holding in the assessee company and that the seized documents also showed that Mr. Rafikbhai and Mr. Rashidbhai received profits of ₹ 12,500/- each from M/s apex in 1998. The A.O. also found that the company had shown profits only to the extent of ₹ 4,716/- and ₹ 3,732/- in 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, respectively, whereas, documents showed that both Mr. Rafik I Nandolia and Mr. Rashid I Nandolia received profits of ₹ 12,500/- each in both the years. The A.O., therefore, concluded that the documents showed that the company made profits to the extent of ₹ 5 lakhs each for the A.Y. 999-200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat there is no mention in the Assessment Order that any satisfaction was recorded by the Assessing Officer while completing the Block assessment of Nandokya Group of cases that any undisclosed income belongs to the assessee and as such the issuance of notice u/s 158BD is ab-initiovoid and bad in law. 3. The appellant submits that even on merits the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in determining undisclosed income of the appellant Company at ₹ 10 lakhs. The assessee also raised an additional ground which reads as follows: The order passed by the Assessing Officer is ab-initio-void and bad-in-law since the same has been passed without issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are produced till date. 8. After hearing rival contentions, we agree with the submissions of Mr. M.P. Makhija that no useful purpose would be served by adjourning the matter once again, to give further time to the Revenue, for producing the records, as more than 1 year has elapsed since the date of issual of directions. Hence adverse inference is taken and ground No.2 of the assessee that no satisfaction was recorded by the AO who completed the block assessment of Nandokya group of cases, appears to be factually correct. Thus we quash the block assessment order by applying the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Maheshwari 289 ITR 341 wherein it is held that (i) Satisfaction must be recorded by the Assessing Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
