TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 520X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cord his satisfaction that any undisclosed income belonged to the company; and (ii) hand over the books of account other documents and assets seized to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction against the company. In the instant case, the A.O. has recorded his satisfaction and after recording the satisfaction, handed over the books of accounts and seized material. Thus, the facts of both the cases are quite different. In the light of above discussion and by considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no reason to sustain the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, we set aside the impugned order passed and remanded the matter back. The answer to the Substantial Question of law , which are interlinked, is again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ii. whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has wrongly relied on the judgement of the Apex Court Manish Maheshwari Vs. ACIT reported in 289 ITR 341 (SC) where the Assessing Officer of the person searched and the Assessing Officer of the other person were different whereas in the instant case the Assessing Officer of the person searched and the other person are one and the same and therefore, the requirement of handing over the books to the Assessing Officer of the other person has no relevance. iii. whether the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse in as much as it is contrary to the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Digvijay Chemicals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... department has filed these appeals. With this background Sri Prashant Kumar, learned counsel for the revenue justified the order passed by the A.O. On the other hand, Sri Mudit Agarwal, counsel for the assessee relied on the orders passed by the CIT (A) as well as ITAT. No valuable contribution has been made by either the counsel. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that the action under section 132 of the Act was carried out simultaneously in the case of (1) M/s. F. I. Builders (P) Ltd., (2) M/s. Azad Educational Society and (3) M/s. F. I. Hospital and (4) M/s Classic Enterprises. At the time of search i.e. 10.11.2005, the jurisdiction over all the respondent-assessees was with Joint CIT, Range II, Luckn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the assessing officer has not recorded his satisfaction, which is mandatory; nor he has transferred the case to the A.O. having jurisdiction over the matter. So, the order of the High Court was set aside. But in the instant case, the A.O. has recorded his satisfaction and after recording the satisfaction on 28.09.2006, handed over the books of accounts and seized material. Thus, the facts of both the cases are quite different. So, the ratio laid down in the case of Manish Maheshwari (supra) is not applicable in the instant case. In the instant case, another admitted substantial question of law was pertaining to the applicability of ratio laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Digvijay C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce Act, 2002, with retrospective effect from July 1, 1995, it can also includes an expense, deduction or allowance which is found to be false. The word 'satisfaction' has not been defined in the Act. The 'satisfaction' by its very nature must precede before the papers/documents are sent by the Assessing Officer of the person searched to the Assessing Officer of the third person. Mere use or mention of the word (satisfaction) in the order/note will not meet the requirement of the concept of satisfaction as used in Section 158BD. The satisfaction has to be in writing and can be gathered from the assessment order, if it is so mentioned/recorded, or from any other order, note or record maintained by the Assessing Officer of the person searched ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has 'undisclosed income' on the basis of evidence or material before him. The material itself should not be vague, indefinite, distinct or remote. Further, in the case of the Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Panchajanyam Management Agencies and Services; (2011) 333 ITR 281 (Ker.), it was held that on the facts there was no necessity for transferring the file from one officer to another, because the person searched was the managing partner and based on the materials gathered during the search the assessment was made by the same officer on the assessee-firm, wherein the searched assessee was the managing partner. So much so, issuance of notice under section 158BD read with section 158BC was sufficient for initiation of assessment which in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
