TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal is as follows:- 1) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the A.O. of Rs.6,36,270 on account of unaccounted on-money paid by the assessee for purchase of flat at Chandan Park Society from Ohm Organizers and Ohm Developers holding that there was inordinate delay in inflation of action u/s.158BD and thereby the proceedings initiated u/s.158BD is invalid. 2. The issue raised by the Revenue has already been decided by Respected Benches in number of appeals, therefore, we have decided to proceed ex-parte qua the assessee, after hearing the ld.Sr.DR Mr.B.L.Yadav who has placed reliance on the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. Facts in brief as emerged from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .1. From the notings on page-14 of Khatavahi marked as BS-4, the Assessing Officer observed that the Assessee had paid a sum of Rs.6,36,270 as on-money towards the purchase of the said flat at Chandan Park. On the other hand, Shri Ketan O.Der a partner of M/s.Ohm Developers had stated on oath, that the khatavahi BS-4 contained the accounts of flat/shop owners of Chandan Park. It also contained the details of date-wise payments received through cheques as well as in cash, which was the on-money. 3.2. When the matter was carried before the first appellate authority, the ld.CIT(A) held as under:- Decision 6. I have carefully considered both the positions. In all the cases of the investors with M/s.Ohm Developers and Ohm Organisers who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment in the case of M/s.Ohm Developers was completed on 30-11-2011. The proceedings u/s.158BD in the case of the Assessee was initiated against the Assessee vide notice dated 22.01.2007, i.e. 5 (five) years later, ad the assessment completed after another 2 (two) years, on 27.01.2009. Interestingly, the AO has made no mention of the date on which intimation was received by him from the AO of M/s.Ohm Developers. 6.2. Given such facts as detailed above, I am of the view that there has been an inordinate delay in initiating and completing the proceedings u/s.158BC r.w.s. 158BD in the case of the Assessee. Though, the Act does not lay down any time limit for initiating proceedings u/s.158BD yet, equity demands that proceedings should not b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .Desai vs. ACIT order dated 28.05.2010 5. IT(SS)A No.66/Ahd/2007 72/Ahd/2007 block period Assessment Year 90-91 to 99-2000 upto 29.10.99 ITAT D Bench Ahmedabad order in the case of Shailesh M.Desai vs. DCIT order dated 15.10.2010 6.Gujarat High Court Decision Khandubhai Vasanji Desai Ors. Vs. Dy.CIT (236 ITR 73)(Guj.) 4.1. All these cases are covered by search operation which was conducted on M/s.Ohm Organizers. In the above cited orders, the Tribunal has noted that search in the case of Ohm Developers was carried out on 29.10.1999. The Tribunal has further noted that the assessment in the case of Ohm Developers was completed on 30.11.2001. Therefore, following Manish Maheshwari 289 ITR 341 (SC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of person search (Ohm Developers) was completed on 30-11-2001 then issuing notice u/s 158BD of the Act on 29-03- 2006 against assessee is barred by limitation. Similar view was taken by the ITAT Ahemdabad Bench in IT(SS)A No.25/Ahd/2007 in the case of Adil Parvez Randeria v. ACIT, CC-3(1), Surat pronounced on 01-09-2008. Following these decisions we hold that the block assessment framed in case of all the above assessee are not legally valid and therefore are quashed for the reason that notices u/s 158BD of the Act were issued in these cases long after completion of assessment in the case of person searched i.e. Ohm Developers." 7. We may also point out that recently the Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in its unreported judgment in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he satisfaction note itself was after conclusion of the proceedings and not during the course of assessment proceedings. This plea was upheld by the CIT(A) following earlier judgment fo the Tribunal in Manoj Aggarwal v. DCIT (2008) 113 KTD 377 (Del)(SB). The Tribunal affirmed the said view. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the revenue. 4. An identical matter was considered by this Court in order dated 207.2010 in ITA No.591 of 2009, Commissioner of Income-tax-l, Ludhiana v. Mridula, Prop. M/s Dhruv Fabrics, Ludhiana and it was observed: "the act no where specifically prescribes any time limit or limitation for initiation of proceedings under Section 158BD of the Act or for recording of satisfaction before taking action under that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
