TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l jurisdiction to the AO of the assessee to proceed with the matter of assessment u/s 153C of the Act for all the years under consideration. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA Nos. 14 to 17/Del/2014 - - - Dated:- 27-2-2015 - SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Smt. P.K. Sidhu, CIT DR For the Respondent : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. ORDER PER BENCH: These six appeals by the Revenue and equal number of Cross objections by the assessee relate to the assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09. Since common issues are raised in these appeals, we are, therefore, proceeding to dispose them off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. The first issue ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ried out u/s 132 of the Act on Sh. B.K. Dhingra, Smt. Poonam Dhingra M/s Madhusudan Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and in such search proceedings, some incriminating documents belonging to the assessee were found which led to the making of the instant assessments u/s 153C of the Act. In order to properly appreciate the contention made by the ld. AR on this score, we consider it expedient to consider the so-called satisfaction recorded by the AO. There is no dispute that the satisfaction has been recorded for all the years under consideration in mutatis mutandis similar manner. For the sake of reference and on a representative basis, we are reproducing the satisfaction recorded for the A.Y. 2003-04, as under: Satisfaction Note for Issuing Notice u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by Sh. B.K. Dhingra, Smt. Poonam Dhingra and M/s Madhusudan Buildcon P. Ltd. under the provisions of RTI Act, 2005. The relevant part of the reply given to Sh. B.K. Dhingra, which is similar to that given to the other two persons also, is reproduced as under: 2. From the assessment records of Sh. Bhupesh Kumar Dhingra, which is covered u/s 153A, for the assessment years from 2003-04 to 2008-09 (Block period) it is noticed that there is no satisfaction note available/recorded in respect of other entities. 3. In case you intend to file the appeal, you may file the same before the Addl. CIT, Central Range-2, 3rd Floor, ARA Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi within 30 days from receipt of this letter. 6. From the above rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r person is same, it is only the AO of the persons searched who is obliged to record satisfaction in his capacity as the AO of the person searched. 8. After considering the arguments made by both the sides, on the lines similar to those which have been made before us also, the Tribunal in the above orders has quashed the assessments so made by declaring them void ab initio for lack of proper jurisdiction. 9. It is pertinent to mention that the same three persons, viz., Sh. B.K. Dhingra, Smt. Poonam Dhingra M/s Madhusudan Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., were searched in all the above cases and the AOs of those assessees recorded satisfaction in the same manner as has been done in the instant case. No satisfaction was recorded by the AOs of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowed to continue since huge amounts are involved in the racket, which was unearthed by the search party. 13. We duly appreciate the concern of the ld. DR for the exchequer. But we are reminded of the basic principle enshrined in Article 265 of the Constitution that no tax can be collected without authority of law. There can be no assessment in the absence of a proper jurisdiction of the authority. The question of jurisdiction is a very important aspect, which cannot be equated with a technical issue. Similar contention raised by the ld. DR has been elaborately dealt with by the Tribunal in the case of Tanvir Collections P. Ltd. (supra). We, therefore, do not approve this contention. 14. The contention of the ld. DR that the hearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is no flaw in such order. 17. The other objections taken by the ld. DR in her written submissions are nothing but reiteration of the points argued earlier, which have been elaborately dealt with in the above referred tribunal orders. 18. In view of the foregoing discussion and respectfully following the above tribunal orders, we set aside the assessment and the impugned orders for the reason that the AO of the persons searched, namely, Sh. B.K. Dhingra, Smt. Poonam Dhingra M/s Madhusudan Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. did not record any satisfaction that some money, bullion, jewellery or books of account or other documents found from these persons belonged to the assessee. The absence of such satisfaction, in our considered opinion, did not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
