9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 569X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment order. We find that this issue is also squarely covered by the order of Tribunal for AYs 2007-08 and 2008-09 and that of the present AY 2006-07 of CIT(A), which is common [2018 (1) TMI 322 - ITAT MUMBAI]/ Taking a consistent view and respectfully following the Tribunals order of co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case, we of the view that there seems no satisfaction recorded by the AO of the searched person namely Shri Subhash Deshmukh in respect to this assessee - decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 4826/Mum/2017 - - - Dated:- 1-3-2019 - Sri Mahavir Singh, JM And Sri G Manjunatha, AM For the Appellant : Shri Anadi Varma, CIT DR For the Respondent : Shri Satish Mody, AR ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... repare two satisfaction notes when the A. 0. is same for both. 3. We heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The facts are that a search and seizure operation u/s 132(1) of the Act was conducted in the case of Shri Subhash Deshmukh and his group companies by the department on 28.03.2011. However, based on certain seized documents, found during the course of search, a sum of ₹ 1,50,00,000/- was offered for taxation in A.Y. 2011-12 on account of undisclosed on-money. Notices u/s.153C of the Act were issued to the assessee on 15.06.2012 and served, requiring it to file returns of income for six assessment years including the assessment year under consideration. In response to notice issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for initiation of proceedings u1s.153C of the Act. Accordingly, notice uls.153C is issued requiring the assessee to file return of income for A.Y 2005-06 to 2010-11. The appellant had sought a copy of the satisfaction note of the AD. having jurisdiction over the searched person vide letter dated 9.2.2015 addressed to the A.O. In this regard, it is observed from the letter of the AO. (DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai) dated 10 2.2015. addressed to the appellant firm that the above said satisfaction note was recorded by the AC. in the case of MIs. L. S. Developers for issue of notice u/s.153C of the Act. During the appeal proceedings, the assessment records in the case of Shri. Subhash Deshmukh for A.Y. 2005-06 to 2011-12 were perused. The common ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... person should have recorded a satisfaction that any of such seized material belong to the assessee, i.e., other than the searched person. The ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that this satisfaction should have been recorded in the case of Shri Subhash Deshmukh. He submitted that the same has been done only in the case of the assessee. The failure to record such satisfaction in the case of searched person, i.e., Shri Subhash Deshmukh, is fatal to the validity of jurisdiction assumed in this case. He submitted that CBDT has also issued Circular to this fact. He submitted that identical issue was considered by ITAT, Nagpur Bench in the case of Zaidun Leeng Sdn Bhd Artefact Projects Ltd. (JV) vs. Dy. CIT (in ITA Nos.382 383/Nag/2014 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same reads as under: - To The Addl. CIT Central Circle 7, Mumbai Sub: Appeal pending before the ITAT A Bench in the case of M/s L.S. Developers ITA No. 4826/Mum/2017 AY 2006-07 Ref : 1) No. CIT(DR)/ITAT/A-Bench/2018-19 dt 17.12.2018 2) No. CIT(DR)/ITAT/A-Bench/2018-19 dt.29.01.2019 2. The report called for has not yet been received in this office so far inspite of repeated reminders. The aforesaid appeal has again been fixed for hearing on 21.02.2019 before the ITAT A-Bench Mumbai. 3. In this regard, Para 5.3.3 of the order of CIT(A) dated 20.04.2017 in the instant case is reproduced below: In this regard, I find that there is a common AO for the case of Shri Subhash Deshmukh as well as M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Officer. Hence, you are requested to send a complete report along with satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer in accordance with the Judgement of the Hon ble Supreme Court ( 362 ITR 673) and the case records of the aforesaid assessee by 118.02.2019. Sd/- Anadi Varma CIT (DR) ITAT, A Bench Mumbai. Copy to: The Dy. CIT Central Circle 7(2), Mumbai for necessary action. 6. The learned CIT Departmental Representative stated that despite his best efforts from last three months, the AO is not sending any report or any satisfaction recorded in the case of searched person. As there is total non-cooperation from the field office of the Income Tax Department, we presumed that the Revenue has nothing to say on this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
