TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 917X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... carried out in the case of Mukesh M Oza - There is no document available in the paper book showing any incriminating material found and seized in the course of search carried out on 07.11.2000 in the case of Mukesh M Oza – Decided partly in favour of Assessee. - I.T.(SS)A. No.41 / Ahd/2007 - - - Dated:- 5-7-2013 - Shri G. C. Gupta And Shri A. K. Garodia,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri A. J. Parekh, AR For the Respondent : Shri Bhupendra Kumar, Sr. DR ORDER Per Shri A. K. Garodia, AM:- This is assessee's appeal directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) IX, Ahmedabad dated 30.11.2006 for the block period 01.04.1990 to 07.11.2000. 2. Before proceeding to decide the appeal, we feel it proper to take note of brief history of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ific sheet of paper recording satisfaction when the overall satisfaction lead to the facts and such satisfaction was duly recorded by the appropriate officer at the appropriate time. Against this tribunal order, the assessee again moved a miscellaneous application and as per the miscellaneous application No.236/Ahd/2012 dated 12.04.2013, second Tribunal order dated 28.09.2012 was also recalled as per para 4 of this tribunal order dated 12.04.2013 which is reproduced below for the sake of ready reference:- "4. At the outset, we must mention that the order passed by the Tribunal on 28-09-2012 was on the limited issue of jurisdiction of the AO u/s 158BD of the Act because this case was recalled earlier in MA No.87/Ahd/2012 vide order dated 0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07.2012 and miscellaneous application 236/Ahd/2012 dated 12.04.2013. Hence, in the present order, we have to decide only this limited aspect. 4. In the course of hearing before us, it was submitted by the Ld. A.R. that if the assessment order u/s 158BC in the case of searched person is not valid then the subsequent order u/s 158BD in the case of other person is also not valid. But apart from making this contention, he could not produce before us any evidence in support of this contention that the order passed by the A.O. u/s 158BC in the case of searched person i.e. Mukesh M Oza was not a valid assessment and hence, this argument of the Ld. A.R. is not rendering any help to the assessee and we do not find any requirement to comment upon t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst this, it was submitted by the Ld. D.R. that speaking order has been passed by Ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, the matter is not required to be restored back to his file for a fresh decision. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that this is noted by the A.O. in the assessment order that in the course of search carried out on 07.11.2000 in the premises of Mukesh M Oza, various incriminating documents and papers were found and seized and the A.O. who made the assessment of Shri Mukesh M Oza u/s 158BC had considered the seized material in the satisfaction note written for formation of a belief that the present assessee had earned undisclosed income for the concerned block period. But there is no finding given by Ld. CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
