9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1866X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time of the institution of the proceedings against the searched person under Section 153A or in the course of the assessment proceedings u/s 153A in the case of the searched person or immediately after the assessment proceedings were completed under Section 153A of the searched person. Though it has been submitted that, the Assessing Officer of both the searched person and the assessee are the same, still in view of the circular issued by the CBDT as requisite satisfaction has not been recorded, respectfully following the decision in the case of Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. [ 2014 (8) TMI 425 - DELHI HIGH COURT] as also following the principles laid down in the case of Arihant Aluminium Corporation [ 2016 (5) TMI 791 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 27.10.2016, ITA.No.134/CIT(A)-VI/BNG/2013-14 & ITA.No.240 / CIT (A) - 2 / PNJ / 2015-16 dated 27.10.2016, ITA.No.135/CIT(A)-VI /BNG/2013-14 & ITA.No.241/CIT(A)-2/PNJ/2015 -16 dated 27.10.2016, ITA.No.136/CIT(A)-VI/BNG/2013-14 & ITA.No.242 / CIT(A) - 2 / PNJ / 2015 - 16 dated 27.10.2016 and ITA.No.137/CIT(A)-VI /BNG/2013-14 & ITA.No.243/CIT(A)-2/PNJ/2015 - 16 dated 27.10.2016 for the Assessment Year 2005 - 06 to 2009 -10 respectively. 2. As the issue in all the appeals are common the same are being disposed of by this common order. 3. Shri Shrinivas Nayak, CA represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Raviraj Y.V represented on behalf of the revenue. 4. At the time of hearing learned Authorized Representative of the assessee submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epted by the learned Departmental Representative. It was further submission by the learned Authorized Representative of the assessee that in the case of the search of Shri M.A. Zahid and Shri M.A. Nayeem no incriminating evidence against assessee firm was found relating to the assessee. It was a submission that at the premises searched the books of accounts of M/s. Madeeha enterprises, the assessee herein was found as the premises belonged to the partners of the assessee firm. It was a submission that no satisfaction has been recorded for the purpose of issues notice under section 153C of the Act. To this the learned Departmental Representative placed before us copy of the order sheet entry dated 12.03.2012 in the case of M/s. Madeeh enterp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Foods Pvt. Ltd. reported in 367 ITR 112 to submit that the order sheet noting as extracted above did not constitute recording of the satisfaction. He further placed reliance of the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka in the case of Arihant Aluminium Corporation as reported in [2016] taxmann.com 286 (Karnataka) as also the Circular issued by the CBDT in Circular No.24/2015 dated 31.12.15. It was a submission that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, recording of satisfaction for the exercise of power under section 153C is a mandatory requirement and cannot be given a go by either at the stage of initiation or during the course of the assessment or at the conclusion of the assessment. It was fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sfied that the seized documents belonged to another person. It was submission that a perusal of the contents of the satisfaction note as provided by the learned Departmental Representative no satisfaction as required under Section 153C could be discerned and consequently as the very first step prior to the issue of the notice under section 153C having not been fulfilled the notice under Section 153C was liable to be quashed. 9. In reply learned Departmental Representative vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). It was a submission that order sheet noting was liable to be considered as satisfaction note. In reply to specific quarry as to whether there is any satisfaction note recording in the case of the persons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered as the satisfaction note in so far as the said note does not disclose the reasons or the basis for the conclusion that the Assessing Officer of the person in respect of whom the search was conducted is satisfied that the seized documents belongs to the assessee. 12. Further a perusal of the circular issued by the CBDT referred to (Supra) when applied to the present case, shows that the mandatory requirement of the recording of the satisfaction note for the exercise of the power under Section 153C has not been complied with either at the time of the institution of the proceedings against the searched person under Section 153A or in the course of the assessment proceedings under Section 153A in the case of the searched person or immedi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
