9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (8) TMI 149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disputed clearly section 158BD of the Act is attracted, thus, the Assit. CIT (Investigation), was not having jurisdiction, thus, the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is found to be correct. Direction issued to hand over the relevant material to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person is found to be proper, thus, no case for interference in this appeal is made out. Substantial question of law No. (i) is also answered against the appellant. Resultantly, the appeal is hereby dismissed. - Arun Mishra And S. C. Sinho JJ. For the Appellant : Sanjay Lal For the Respondent : A. P. Shrivastava JUDGMENT ARUN MISHRA J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal has been preferred. It has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law as per order dated October 29, 2001: (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in annulling the assessment order by observing that in the instant case, the Assessing Officer did not have valid jurisdiction over the assessee whereas the case of the assessee being connected with the case of Shri Purushottam Khatri where search and seizure operation was carried out as per warrant of authorization under section 132 of the Act and in view of Notification No.1 NOTFN/BPL/95-96 dated April 28, 1995, the jurisdiction over the assessee vested with the ACIT (Inv.), Circl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions of law Nos. (ii) and (iii) are covered by judgment of this court in M.A.I.T. No.7 of 2001, decided on January 25, 2006 (CIT v. Vimla Khatri [2007] 288 ITR 168 (MP)) is not disputed at the Bar. The questions have been decided against the Revenue, consequently for the reasons stated in the judgment dated January 25, 2006, passed in M.A.I.T. No.7 of 2001, the substantial questions of law Nos. (ii) and (iii) are answered against the appellant. 4. Coming to the substantial question of law No. (i), in view of the undisputed fact that search was not made in the premises of the respondent assessee, in such a situation in the case of undisclosed income of any other person, section 158BD of the Act provides thus: 158BD. Undisclosed income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
