Late Shri Chandrakant C. Sheth,Through L/H Jitubhai C. Sheth, RAJKOT-GUJARAT V. The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cir.-1 (2), RAJKOT-GUJARAT

CO 55/RJT/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7300 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 19-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANJIT SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: DM RINDANI
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Document seized; Period of limitation; Block assessment; Tax effect; Time period of passing order; Documents seized
• Section: 158BC; 73; 13; 158BD; 131; 6; 132

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS . MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SR. NO. IT (SS) A /CO NO. ASSTT. YEAR NAME OF APPELLANT NAME OF RESPONDENT 1. 03 /RJT /201 5 BLOCK PERIOD 01/04/96 TO 12/09/02 D.C.I.T. CIRCLE - 1(2) RAJKOT SHRI CHANDRAKANT C. S H ETH , 42, VAIBHAV APARTMENT , RAMKRISHNA NAGAR, STREET NO.2, RAJKOT 2 . C.O.NO.55/RJT/2015 (IN IT(SS) A NO.03/RJT/2015 - DO - LATE SHRI CHANDRAKANT C. SHETH (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR JITUBHAI C. SETH) RAJKOT D.C.I.T. CIRCLE - 1(2) RAJKOT 3. 04/RJT/2015 BLOCK PERIOD ENDING ON12/09/02 SMT. TARULATABEN C. SETH, RAJKOT A.C.I.T. CIRCLE - 1, RAJKOT (APPLICANT) (RESPON D ENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI RANJIT SINGH, CIT.DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI D.M RINDANI , A.R / DATE OF HEARING : 28 / 07 / 2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31 / 08 /2020 / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE CAPTIONED APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) - RAJKOT (IN SHORT LD. CIT(A) ) INVOLVING RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS . THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED C.O BEARING NO.55/RJT/2015 (IN IT(SS)A NO.3/RJT/2015) FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD FROM 01/04/96 TO 12/09/02 . SINCE ISSUES INVOLVE IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL, IT(SS)A NO.03 - 04/RJT/2015 WITH C.O.NO.55/RJT/2015(IN IT(SS)A NO.3/RJT/2015 BLOCK PERIOD 2 WE PRO CEED TO DISPOSE OF ALL THE APPEALS BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY 2. FIRST, WE TAKE UP THE CO NO.55/RJT/2015 (IN IT(SS)A NO.3/RJT/ 2015) RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUND OF CROSS OBJECTION IS AS FOLLOWS : (I) THAT ALTERNATIVELY AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE OTHER GROUNDS, THE LEARNED CIT9A) - I, RAJKOT HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING ON GROUND NO.1 AS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE ENTIRE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AND COMPLETED U/S. VERY JURISDICTION TO CARRY OUT THE SEARCH U/S.132 WAS ABSENT AND VITIATED. 2 . 1 THE ASSESSEE IN THE CO HAS CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE SEARCH WAS CARRIED OUT WITHOUT HAVING THE JURISDICTION OVER THE AS SESSEE. 3. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS INDIVIDUAL AND WAS SUBJECTED TO SEARCH CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 12 TH SEPTEMBER 2002. THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IN TH E SEARCH WARRANT WAS RECORDED AS SHRI CHANDRAKANT M. SHETH WHEREAS THE ACTUAL NAME IS SHRI CHANDRAKANT C. SHETH. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT ON THE ASSESSEE WAS INVALID IN THE ABSENCE OF HIS NAME ON THE SEARCH WARRANT. 3.1 HOWEVER, THE DEPARTMENT, VIDE LETTER DATED 17 - 7 - 2020 CLARIFIED THAT THERE IS A TYPOGRAPHICAL/CLERICAL ERROR IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. AS SUCH THE DIFFERENCE WAS FOUND IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE THAT TOO LIMITED TO ONE ALPHABET ONLY WHICH IS DUE TO INAD VERTENT ERROR. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT DATED 17 JULY 2020 READS AS UNDER: 8. FURTHER MORE, FORM THE PERUSAL OF THE WARRANT THAT THERE IS ADVERTENT ERROR IN WRITING THE NAME OF WARRANT I.E INSTEAD OF C M IS WRITTEN IN M IDDLE NAME MR.CHANDRAKANT SHETH BUT IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THIS INADVERTENT ERROR WOULD NOT VITIATE SEARCH DUE TO FOLLOWING REASONS: IT(SS)A NO.03 - 04/RJT/2015 WITH C.O.NO.55/RJT/2015(IN IT(SS)A NO.3/RJT/2015 BLOCK PERIOD 3 1. SEARCH WARRANT IS AN AB ENTRY INTO PREMISE AND THE ADDRESS OF THE PREMISE TO BE SEARCHED U/S 132(1) IS CORRECT ON THE SEARCH WARRANT. 2. THERE ARE TWO PERSONS NAMES IN WARRANT EVEN IF THERE IS AN INADVERTENT ERROR IN ONE NAME, OTHER NAME IS CORRECT. SO, WARRANT WOULD NOT GET VITIATED. 3. FURTHER, ON ALL THE ANNEXURES FOR THE INVENTORIES MADE DURING THE SEARCH ACTION , THE NAME OF CHANDRAKANT SHETH HAS BEEN WRITTEN AS CHANDRAKANT C SHETH ON WHICH TARULATABEN C SHETH HAS SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF TWO PANCHAS WHICH ALSO ESTABLISHED THAT SEARCH HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT AT THE RIGHT PLACE AND ON CORRECT PERSONS. IN VIEW OF TH E ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE SEARCH ACTION AND WARRANT I THEREOF CAN NOT BE VITIATED MERE ON THE BASIS OF AN INADVERTENT ERROR IN WRITING INITIAL OF MIDDLE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE TO BE SEARCHED U/S 132(1) OF THE I T ACT, 1961 WHEN ALL THE OTHER DOCUMENTS PROVE THAT THE SEARCH U/S 132(1) HAS BEEN CAR RIED OUT AT RIGHT PLACE AND ON THE CORRECT PERSONS. 4. IN RESPONSE TO THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT, THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE IN HIS REJOINDER DATED 21 JULY 2020 SUBMITTED THAT IF THE CONTENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT IS ASSUMED TO BE CORRECT I.E. THERE WAS THE VALID SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE, THEN THE ASSESSMENT ON THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN FRAMED UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT WHEREAS THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE UNDER SECTION 158BD READ WITH SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN FRAMED UNDER THE WRONG SECTION WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW AND THUS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 5. THE LEARNED AR FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED FOR PASSING THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT IS 30 SEPTEMBER 2004 AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158 BE OF THE ACT WHEREAS THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN FRAMED ON 31 OCTOBER 2006 BEYOND THE TIME PRESCRIBED. THUS, THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SECTION 158BD R.W.S. 158BC OF THE ACT IS DEFECTIVE WHICH IS NOT CURABLE UNDER THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 292CC OF THE ACT AS IT DID NOT EXIST DURING THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS RIGHTLY MADE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BD THE ACT AS THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NO T APPEARING IN THE SEARCH WARRANT. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT IT(SS)A NO.03 - 04/RJT/2015 WITH C.O.NO.55/RJT/2015(IN IT(SS)A NO.3/RJT/2015 BLOCK PERIOD 4 THE ASSESSEE BEING A NON - SEARCHED PERSON WAS SUBJECT TO THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE TIME - LIMIT AVAILABLE TO THE AO FOR PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT WAS 31.10.2006. AS SUCH THE AO HAS FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT WITHIN THE TIME AS SPECIFIED UNDER SECTION 158BE OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED DR ALSO FILED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION VIDE LETTER DATED 24 JULY 2020 WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: THE HON'BLE MEMBERS, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT SUB: SUBMISSION IN THE CASE OF CANDRAKANT C. SHETH IT(SS) - 03/RJT - 2015 AND CO. - 55/RJT/2015 AND SMT. TARULATA C. SHETH IT(SS) - 04/RJT - 2015 - REG. KINDLY REFER TO THE ABOVE. DURING THE HEARING DATED 20.07.2020 THE HON'BLE ITAT HAD SOUGHT COPY OF SATISFACTION NOTE FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 158BD IN THE CASE OF SHRI CHANDRAKANT C. SHETH. AS DIRECTED THE AO HAS SUBMITTED THE COPY OF SATISFACTION NOTE FOR PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BD IN RESPECT OF SHRI CHANDRAKANT C. SHETH RECORDED BY THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, RAJKOT ON 01.10.2004. COPY OF SAME IS ENCLOSED. THE HON'BLE ITAT HAD ALSO ASKED DURING HEARING ON 20.07.2020 WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICERS OF CHARULATA C. SHETH AND CHANDRA KANT C. SHETH WERE SAME OR DIFFERENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING HEARING HAD STATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICERS WERE DIFFERENT. HOWEVER, NOW THE AO HAS REPORTED THAT AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RECORDS HE FOUND THAT THE AO OF BOTH SMT. TARULATA C. SHETH AND CHANDRAKANT C. SHETH WAS SAME AND THAT THE NOTICE U/S 158BD WAS ISSUED IN CASE OF SHRI CHANDRAKANT C. SHETH BY THE SAME AO WHO HAD ASSESSED TARULATA C. SHETH U/S 158BC. THE AO HAS EXPRESSED HIS SINCERE APOLOGY FOR QUOTING WRONG FACT ABOUT ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE LAST HEARING. IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE CORRECT FACTS MAY BE TAKEN ON RECORD AND THE OFF HAND REPLY GIVEN DURING HEARING WITHOUT VERIFICATION OF RECORDS MAY KINDLY BE EXPUNGED. THE AO HAS REPORTED THAT EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS INADVERTENT MISTAKE IN THE MIDDLE NAME OF SHRI CHANDRAKANT SHETH IT WOULD NOT VITIATE THE WHOLE SUCH PROCEEDINGS IN BOTH THE CASES. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE NON - RECTIFIABLE MISTAKE IN THE WARRANT T HE AQ. DID NOT INITIATE PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BC IN THE CASE OF SHRI CHANDRAKANT C. SHETH, THE AO HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT 'DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 15SBC IN (HE CASE OF SMT. TARULA TA C, SHETH, HIS HUSBAND SHRI CHANDRAKANT C. SHETH HAD FILED ON AFFIDAVIT DATED 28.09.2004 BEFORE THE AO OF SMT, TARVLGTO C SHETH THAI BARRING JEWELLERY ALL THE OTHER DOCUMENTS SEIZED FROM THEIR RESIDENTIAL PREMISE ARE CAN ONLY BE EXPLAINED BY HIM AND HIS SON SHRI JITUBHAL AND HIS WIFE U, SMT TARULATA C, SHETH IS A HO USEHOLDER AND DO NOT HAVE ANY OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME. THE SAME FACT WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY S HRI CHANDRAKANT C. SHETH IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER OATH U/S 131 OF THE I.T. ACT,1961 ON 29.09.2004. IN THE ' QUESTION NO. 7 OF THE SAID STATEMENT SHRI CHANDRAKANT C. SHETH WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED THAT HIS THIS ACT MAY ATTRACT PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BD IN HIS OR HIS SON'S CASE. IN REPLY HE RE - AFFIRM THE ABOVE FACTS. IT(SS)A NO.03 - 04/RJT/2015 WITH C.O.NO.55/RJT/2015(IN IT(SS)A NO.3/RJT/2015 BLOCK PERIOD 5 THEREFORE, LOOKING AT THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD J AND OWN ADMISSION OF SHRI CHANDRAKANT C. SHETH, THE THEN AO HAS INITIATED PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BD OF THE I.T. ACT,1961 AFTER RECORDING THE ABOVE MENTIONED SATISFACTION.' IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE ASSESSMENT U/S 158BC IN THE CASE OF CHAR ULATA C. SHETH ON THE STRENGTH OF WARRANT IN HER NAME WAS VALID AND IN TIME. SIMILARLY, ASSESSMENT IN CASE OF SHRI CHANDRAKANT C. SHETH U/S 158BD ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS/ASSETS PERTAINING TO HIM FOUND DURING SEARCH IN CASE OF SMT. TARULATA C. SHET H WAS ALSO VALID AND IN TIME. FOR READY REFERENCE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BE(2) WHICH STIPULATE THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR COMP LETION OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT WHICH REPRODUCED BELOW: 'TIME LIMIT FOR COMPLETION OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT. 158BE. (1) XXXXXX (2) THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR COMPLETION OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF THE OTHER PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 158BD SHALL BE - (A) XXXXXX (B) TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE NOTICE UNDER THIS CHAPTER WAS SERVED ON SUCH OTHER PERSON IN RESPECT OF SEARCH INITIATED OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ANY ASSETS ARE REQUISITIONED ON OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY OF JANUARY, 1997.' THEREFORE, IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE LEGAL GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING VALIDITY OF SEARCH AND ASSESSMENTS M AY KINDLY BE REJECTED. 7. THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. W E HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE 1 ST ISSUE ARISES WHETHER THE SEARCH WARRANT UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE OR THE OTHER PERSON AS THERE WAS THE DIFFERENCE IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE LIMITED TO 1 ALPHABET C WHETHER IT WAS M . IN THIS REGARD WE NOTE THAT THE LEARNED AR IN HIS REJOINDER DATED 21 JULY 2020 H AS NOT CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY ON THIS COUNT. THUS, WE CAN DRAW AN INFERENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NO LONGER INTERESTED TO CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT ON THE GROUND OF NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. 8.1 HOWEVER, WE FIND FORCE IN THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS WRONGLY MADE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158 BD R.W.S. 158BC OF THE ACT. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE LEARNED DR VIDE LETTER DATED 17 - 7 - 2020 ADMITTED THAT THERE WAS THE VALID SEARCH CARRIED OUT ON THE ASSESSEE UNDER IT(SS)A NO.03 - 04/RJT/2015 WITH C.O.NO.55/RJT/2015(IN IT(SS)A NO.3/RJT/2015 BLOCK PERIOD 6 SECTION 132 OF THE ACT. THUS, THERE REMAINS NO AMBIGUITY THAT IN VIEW OF THE SEARCH CARRIED OUT UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE WAS SUBJECT TO ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT. 8.2 SIMILARLY, WE NOTE THAT T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BC AND BD OPERATE IN DIFFERENT AREA AND THEREFORE THE TIME LIMIT FOR PASSING THE ORDER UNDER THESE SECTIONS IS ALSO DIFFERENT. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT ARE APPLICABLE UPON THE ASSESSEE WHO IS SUBJECT TO SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WHEREAS THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BD ARE APPLICABLE UPON THE PERSON WHO WAS NOT SUBJECT TO SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT, BUT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS FOUND BELONGING TO SUCH PERSON I.E. OTHE R THAN THE PERSON WITH RESPECT TO WHOM SEARCH WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT. 8.3 SIMILARLY, THE TIME LIMIT SPECIFIED FOR COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT OF THE PERSON UNDER SECTION 158BE OF THE ACT WHO WAS SUBJECT TO SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WAS WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE LAST OF THE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WAS EXECUTED WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF THE PERSON OTHER THAN THE SEARCH PERSON THE TIME LIMIT WAS SPECIFIED FOR 2 YEARS FROM THE EN D OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE NOTICE UNDER THIS CHAPTER WAS SERVED ON SUCH OTHER PERSON. 8.4 SINCE BOTH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BC AND 158BD OF THE ACT BEING DIFFERENT AND INDEPENDENT TO EACH OTHER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS UN DER THE OBLIGATION TO ASSESS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE CORRECT PROVISIONS OF LAW I.E. 158BC OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE TIME LIMIT AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 158BE FOR THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT WAS TO BE APPLIED I.E. W ITHIN 2 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE LAST OF THE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WAS MADE. THE TIME LIMIT FOR SUCH ASSE SSMENT AS HIGHLIGHTED BY THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS 30 SEPTEMBER 2004 WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE LEARNED DR FOR THE REVENUE. IT(SS)A NO.03 - 04/RJT/2015 WITH C.O.NO.55/RJT/2015(IN IT(SS)A NO.3/RJT/2015 BLOCK PERIOD 7 IN HOLDING SO WE DRAW SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE FROM THE JUDGMENT OF HON BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KHANDUHAI VASANJI DESAI & ORS. VS. DCIT REPORTED IN 236 ITR 73 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: IT IS ONLY W HEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO ANY OTHER PERSON THAT THE OCCASION TO PROCEED AGAINST SUCH OTHER PERSON FOR THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT OF THE UNDISCLOSED YEAR BELONGING TO HIM CAN ARISE. NECESSARILY, THEREFORE, A DIF FERENT STARTING POINT OF COMMENCEMENT OF LIMITATION FOR MAKING THE ASSESSMENT OF THE BLOCK PERIOD IN CASE OF SUCH OTHER PERSON WAS REQUIRED TO BE FIXED AND THE OBVIOUS STARTING POINT WAS THE SERVING OF THE NOTICE TO SUCH PERSON AFTER THE REQUISITE SATISFAC TION WAS REACHED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGED TO SUCH OTHER PERSON. ONCE THE SATISFACTION UNDER SECTION 158BD IS REACHED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THERE WOULD BE NO VALID REASON FOR HIM TO DELAY THE ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICE W HICH OUGHT TO BE ISSUED SOON AFTER THE SATISFACTION IS REACHED AND IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIFFERENT, HE OUGHT TO IMMEDIATELY TRANSMIT THE RELEVANT MATERIAL TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION TO ENABLE HIM TO PROCEED AGAINST SUCH OTHER PERSON BY ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 158BC REQUIRING HIM TO FILE THE RETURN. SINCE THE SATISFACTION THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO ANY PERSON OTHER THAN THE ONE WITH RESPECT TO WHOM SEARCH WAS MADE OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS REQUISITIONED , MAY IN MANY CASES, BE REACHED AFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER STARTS THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 158BC AGAINST THE PERSON WITH RESPECT TO WHOM THE SEARCH WAS MADE; THE SHIFT OF THE COMMENCEMENT POINT OF THE LIMITATION TO THE DATE OF THE NOTICE, WHICH COULD BE ISSUED TO SUCH OTHER PERSON ONLY AFTER IT COMES TO LIGHT LEADING TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO HIM, WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED AND IT WAS GERMANE TO THE OBJECT OF MAKING THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF SUCH OTHER PERSON WHO IS NOW KNOWN AS A PERSON TO WHOM THAT UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ONCE HE REACHES THE REQUISITE SATISFACTION, IS BOUND TO ACT SWIFTLY TO PROCEED AGAINST SUCH OTHER PERSON AS SOON AS MAY BE IN REASONAB LE TIME. THE SPEED AND DESPATCH WITH WHICH HE SHOULD ACT IS WRIT LARGE ON THE CONNECTED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132(9A) UNDER WHICH THE AUTHORISED OFFICER WHO HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE ( A ), ( B ) OR ( C ) OF SUB - SECTION (1) OF SE CTION 132 HAS TO HAND OVER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, DOCUMENTS AND ASSETS SEIZED TO THE ITO HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH PERSON WITHIN 15 DAYS OF SUCH SEIZURE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO SERVE A NOTICE TO SUCH PERSON UNDER SECTION 158BC(1) REQUIR ING HIM TO FURNISH RETURN IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM 28 AND TO COMPLETE THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT IN ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE LAST AUTHORISATION FOR SEARCH OR REQUISITION WAS EXECUTED. THUS, THE APPREHENSION THAT A NOTICE CAN BE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 158BD READ WITH SECTION 158BC(1) BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE CASE OF SUCH OTHER PERSON AT ANY TIME IS ILL - FOUNDED. THERE IS NO LIFTING OF THE LIMITATION PERIOD FOR MAKING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH IS ONE YEAR AND THE STARTING POINT OF LIMITA TION IN CASES FALLING UNDER SECTION 158BD BY THE VERY NATURE OF THINGS CAN BE FIXED ONLY AFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO SUCH OTHER PERSON AND IN CASES WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIFFERENT AFTER THE RELEV ANT MATERIAL IS TRANSMITTED TO HIM. AS SOON AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION RECEIVES THE MATERIAL IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER PERSON, HE IS IN THE SAME POSITION AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO FORWARDED IT TO HIM AND IS EXPECTED TO IMMEDIATELY PROCEE D TO ISSUE NOTICE TO THAT OTHER PERSON WHO FALLS IN HIS JURISDICTION. THIS EXTRA TIME FOR COMPUTING LIMITATION IS WARRANTED BY THE FACT THAT THE REQUISITE SATISFACTION ABOUT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGING TO SUCH OTHER PERSON MAY BE REACHED AFTER THE COM MENCEMENT OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE RAIDED PERSON AND CONSIDERATION OF THE EVIDENCE FORWARDED BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER AND INFORMATION THAT MAY BE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND TRANSMITTED TO THE OTHER ASSESSING OFFICER IN CASES W HERE THE OTHER PERSON FALLS IN THE JURISDICTION OF THAT OTHER ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WILL NECESSARILY TAKE SOME TIME. THIS DISTINCTION PRESCRIBING A DIFFERENT STARTING POINT OF LIMITATION IS, THEREFORE, MADE ON A RATIONAL BASIS AND HAS A DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE OBJECT OF ASSESSING THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME SOUGHT TO BE ACHIEVED BY CHAPTER XIV - B. THE CHALLENGE IT(SS)A NO.03 - 04/RJT/2015 WITH C.O.NO.55/RJT/2015(IN IT(SS)A NO.3/RJT/2015 BLOCK PERIOD 8 AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BD ON THE GROUND THAT IT TREATS EQUALS, THAT IS, THE RAIDED PERSON AND THE OTHER PERSON WHOSE UNDISCLOSED INCOMES ARE TO BE ASSESSED, AS UNEQUALS AND THEREBY VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 IS, THEREFORE, BASELESS. 8.5 SIMILARLY WE ALSO DRAW SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE FROM THE JUDGMENT OF HON BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF V. RAMAIAH VS. CIT REPORTED IN 356 ITR 646 WHEREIN IT WAS H ELD AS UNDER: 18. THEREFORE, THESE TWO SECTIONS CANNOT BE CONFUSED OR APPLIED INTERCHANGEABLE IN VIEW OF CLEAR USE OF LANGUAGE BY THE LEGISLATURE AND IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT BOTH THESE SECTIONS CONVEY THE SAME MEANING AND CAN BE APPLIED TO ONE AND THE SAME SITUATION. 8.6 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED DATED 31 OCTOBER 2006 IS TIME BARRED AND DEFECTIVE WHICH IS NOT CURABLE. ACCORDINGLY, WE QUASH THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 158BD READ WITH SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT. THUS THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS ON THE TECHNICAL GROUND. 8.7 IN THE RESULT, THE CO OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 9. COMING TO THE ITSS (A) NO. 3/RJT/2015, AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE. 10. AT THE OUTSET WE NOTE THAT, WE HAVE ALREADY QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE AO BEING UNSUSTAINABLE FOR THE REASONS AS DETAILED IN THE PARAGRAPH NUMBER 8 OF THIS ORDER. FOR THE DETAILED DISCUSSION, PLEASE REFER THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPH. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE R EVENUE. AS SUCH THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS. 10.1 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 11. COMING TO THE ITSS (A) 4 /RJT/2015, AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE 11.1 AT THE OUTSET WE NOTE THAT, THE ASSES SMENT WAS FRAMED ON THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 158 BC OF THE ACT ON THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 21,63,590.00 VIDE IT(SS)A NO.03 - 04/RJT/2015 WITH C.O.NO.55/RJT/2015(IN IT(SS)A NO.3/RJT/2015 BLOCK PERIOD 9 ORDER DATED 30 SEPTEMBER 2004. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (A) CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE SEARCH CONDUCTED UNDER SECTIO N 132 OF THE ACT AND CONSEQUENT ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SECTION 158 BC OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE BESIDES THE TECHNICAL ISSUE RAISED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (A), ALSO AGITATED THE VARIOUS ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ON MERIT. 11.2 THE LEARNED CIT (A) DISMISSED THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE SEARCH AND CONSEQUENT ASSESSMENT AS DISCUSSED ABOVE BUT DELETED THE ADDITION ON MERIT AS MADE BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. 11.3 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT AGAINST THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) UPHOLDING THE SEARCH AND THE CONSEQUENT ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE AO WHEREAS T HE REVENUE WAS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) DELETING THE ADDITION ON MERIT MADE BY THE AO. 11.4 HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LEARNED AR BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE WAS DISMISSED DUE TO LOW TAX EFFECT. ACCORDINGLY, THE LEARNED AR AT THE TIME OF HEARING SUBMITTED THAT IF THE CO BEARING NO. 55/RJT/2015 IS ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. SHRI CHANDRAKANT C. SHETH ON TECHNICAL ISSUE, THEN HE IS NOT INCLINED TO ADVANCE ANY ARGUMENT IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 12. THE LEARNED DR AT THE TIME OF HEARING HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD AGAINST THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE I.E. THE REVENUE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED DUE TO LOW TAX EFFECT. IT(SS)A NO.03 - 04/RJT/2015 WITH C.O.NO.55/RJT/2015(IN IT(SS)A NO.3/RJT/2015 BLOCK PERIOD 10 13 . ADMITTEDLY, WE HAV E DECIDED THE TECHNICAL ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE I.E. SHRI CHANDRAKANT C. SHETH IN THE CO BEARING NUMBER 55/RJT/2015 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. SHRI CHANDRAKANT C. SHETH VIDE PARA NO. 8 OF THIS ORDER. 13 .1 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY WE DISMISS THE SAME AS INFRUCTUOUS. 13 .2 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 14 . IN THE C OMBINED RESULTS, C.O FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEARING NO.55/RJT/2015 (IN IT(SS) A NO.3/RJT/2015) IS ALLOWED WHEREAS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE BEARING IT(SS)A NO.03/RJT/2015 AND ASSESSEE BEARING IT(SS)A NO.04/RJT/2015 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD ARE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 31 / 0 8 / 20 20 AT AHMEDABAD. - SD - - SD - (MS MADHUMITA ROY ) (WASEEM AHMED ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (TRUE COPY) A HMEDABAD; DATED 31 / 08 /2020 MANISH