TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 713X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s satisfied that based on the material seized from the office of the "Karta" of HUF, undisclosed income belong to the present petitioner Co-operative Credit Society. Even in the affidavit-in-reply, it is nowhere stated that such satisfaction was arrived at during the course of proceedings under section 158BC of the Act and that such satisfaction was recorded by the Assessing Officer. Neither in the affidavit-in-reply nor through the documents this vital aspect emerges. The important precondition for action under section 158BD of the Act, therefore, having not been satisfied, the action must fail. On this ground, the impugned notice dated October 3, 2005 is quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee. - SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 22417 of 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... UF was subjected to search operations under section 132 of the Act on August 13, 2002. The proceedings under section 158BC of the Act were carried out and completed on August 3, 2004. Long time thereafter, the impugned notice came to be issued against the petitioner on the premise that during such proceedings under section 158BC of the Act the concerned authority was satisfied that undisclosed income belonged to the present petitioner and that, therefore, the proceedings under section 158BD were called for. 3. This action is challenged by the petitioner on various grounds. Firstly, that the notice itself demonstrates the total non-application of mind. It records that the search operation was carried in the case of the present petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 58BD of the Act. He further contended that the Assessing Officer had arrived at a satisfaction that undisclosed income found during the search belong to the present petitioner. 6. Having thus heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, it emerges that in the notice itself, the petitioner has been referred to as a person who was subjected to search. He was, therefore, called upon to file the return as specified under section 158BC of the Act. Admittedly, the facts were to the contrary. Even if these are explained away as mere typographical errors, such major discrepancies would demonstrate a degree of non-application of mind at the end of a person signing such a notice. We are, however, of the opi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he person with respect to whom the search was made, prior to handing over the documents referred to in the aforesaid com munication. In the circumstances, the basic condition precedent for invoking section 158BD of the Act qua the petitioner has not been satisfied. In the aforesaid premises, in the absence of the basic requirement for invoking section 158BD of the Act being satisfied, respondent No. 2 lacked the jurisdiction to issue such notice and as such the impugned notice under section 158BD of the Act cannot be sustained. 6.3 In the case of Mridula, Prop. Dhruv Fabrics (supra), the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the action contemplated under section 158BD of the Act against a third parson to a search is necessarily to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
