Shri Virender Kumar Bhatia, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

CO 93/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9827 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 8 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 13-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 13-06-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 23-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C S AGARWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VIJAY VARMA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Search and seizure; Loose papers; Document seized; Share purchase agreement; Period of limitation; Valuation report; Block assessment; Time period of passing order; Documents seized
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

1 IT(SS)A N0. 6 & C.O NO. 93/DEL/2011 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: B NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. SAINI, VICE PRESID ENT AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDI CIAL MEMBER IT(SS)A NO. 9/DEL/2011 BLOCK PERIOD: 1998-99 TO 2003-04 DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, ROOM NO. 333 E-2, ARA CENTRE, JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) VS VIRENDER KUMAR BHATIA N-71, PANCHSHEEL PARK NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) C.O NO. 93/DEL/2011 BLOCK PERIOD: 1998-99 TO 2003-04 APPELLANT BY SH. VIJAY VARMA, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY SH. C. S. AGARWAL, SR. ADV ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS O BJECTION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30/11/2010 PASSED BY CIT(A)-1, NEW DELHI FOR BLOCK PERIOD: 1998-99 TO 2003-04). 2. THE GROUNDS FOR APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- IT(SS)A NO. 9/DEL/2011 1. THE ORDER OF THE ID. CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT I N LAW AND FACTS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN HOLDING BLOCK ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 158BC READ WITH DATE OF HEARING 24.09.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 13.12.2018 2 IT(SS)A N0. 6 & C.O NO. 93/DEL/2011 SECTION 158D OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AS INVALID WHI LE IGNORING THE FACT THAT SATISFACTION HAS BEEN RECORDED ON THE BASIS OF INCR IMINATING SEIZED DOCUMENTS SCANNED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, BY THE AO WHO HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE CASES OF VATIKA GROUP. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN RELYING ON THE ARGUMENTS REPROD UCED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER THAT BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED UN DER SECTION 158BD ON 27.7.2007 DURING PENDENCY OF ORIGINAL PROVISIONS IN ITIATED UNDER SECTION 15BD ON 14/7/2005 WHEREAS THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN ADEQU ATELY ADDRESSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY SCANNING THE D & CR TO SUBS TANTIATE THAT ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN DROPPED PRIOR IN INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS ON 27.7.2007. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN RELYING ON THE JUDICIAL P RONOUNCEMENTS IN MANOJ MAHESHWARI 289 ITR 341 IN ASSESSMENT ORDER AND HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN AMITY HOTELS PVT. LIMITED IN 272 ITR 75, WHICH A RE VASTLY ON DIFFERENT FACT AND HAVE BEEN AMPLY DISCUSSED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER A ND REMAND REPORT. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN HOLDING THAT SIMILAR ADDI TION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE CASE OF M/S BAANI TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. AND DELETE D IN APPEAL WHEREAS THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS PENDING BEFORE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT AND THE ADDITION IN THAT CASE WAS MADE ON DIFFERENT BASIS. 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN HOLDING ASSESSMENT AS BEYOND RE ASONABLE TIME WHEREAS NO SUCH PROVISION IS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 158BE(2) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 7. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF UNDISC LOSED INCOME AT RS.2,44,58,812/- WITHOUT ADVERSELY ADJUDICATING CON TENTS OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS SCANNED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. C.O NO. 93/DEL/2011 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) HAS FAILED TO 3 IT(SS)A N0. 6 & C.O NO. 93/DEL/2011 APPRECIATE THAT, SINCE NO ORDER DROPPING THE PROCEE DINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT DATED 14.7.2005 HAD EVER B EEN SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE, SUBSEQUENT NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT DATED 27/7/2007 WAS NOT A VALID NOTICE AND, HENCE T HE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 30.07.2009 WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTIO N. INFACT, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FAILED TO COMPREHEND THE ALLEGED DROPPING OF PROCEEDING ON THE PURPORTED DATE OF DRO PPING OF PROCEEDINGS WAS MERELY A CLOAK OR A COLORABLE DEVICE AND WAS SHOWN ONLY FOR COLLATERAL PURPOSES, TO CIRCUMVENT THE NON FRAMING THE ASSESSM ENT WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. 1.2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT, THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED ASSESSI NG OFFICER THAT THE MERE FACT THAT THE DECISION TO DROP THE PROCEEDINGS WAS NOT COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE INTERPRETED AS EVIDENCE OF THE F ACT THAT PROCEEDINGS WERE BARRED BY LIMITATION OR THAT THEY REMAINED PENDING TILL THE DATE OF LIMITATION IS MISCONCEIVED, MISPLACED AND ERRONEOUS CONCLUSION . INFACT, ONCE, IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT NO ORDER DROPPING PROCEEDINGS HAD BEE N COMMUNICATED TO THE APPELLANT THEM, IT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN HELD THAT NOT ICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT DATED 27.7.2007 WAS WITHOUT JURISD ICTION AS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF TRUSTEES O F H.H.H. THE NIZAMS SUPPLEMENTAL FAMILY TRUST VS. CIT REPORTED IN 242 I TR 381, AIR 2001 SC 3471 AND, HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C IT VS. K.L.M. ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES VS. CIT REPORTED IN 292 ITR 49. 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) HAS OTHERWISE TO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 158 BD OF THE ACT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION SINCE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 158BD OF TH E ACT DATED 27.7.2007 DID NOT RECORD ANY SATISFACTION AS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DELHI AUTO FINANCE PRIVATE LIMIT ED VS. JCIT REPORTED IN 300 ITR 83 FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MANISH MAHESHWARI REPORTED IN 289 ITR 341. 4 IT(SS)A N0. 6 & C.O NO. 93/DEL/2011 3. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) HAS ALSO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT SATISFACTION RECORDED BY THE LEARNE D DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20 ON THE ORDER SHEET AN D, NOT IN THE NOTICE IS NOT A VALID SATISFACTION SINCE SATISFACTION UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT HAS TO BE RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED P ERSON AND, NOT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE APPELLANT AND THEREFORE, S UCH PURPORTED SATISFACTION AS HAS BEEN RECORDED IN THE ORDER SHEET AND, NOT CO MMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE, IS NOT A VALID SATISFACTION AND THEREFORE , DOES NOT CONFER VALID JURISDICTION TO FRAME THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT. 3. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED U/S 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON 8/5/2003 IN VATIKA GROUP OF CASES HEAD ED BY SHRI ANIL BHALLA WHO IS A LEADING DEVELOPER OF PREMIUM CORPORATE COM PLEXES RESORTS AND RESTAURANTS. IN THIS SEARCH, THE PREMISES OF M/S B AANI TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. (PRESENTLY KNOWN AS VATIKA LANDMARK PROJECTS PVT. L TD.) AT FIP GURGAON WAS ALSO COVERED. FURTHER RESIDENCE OF SHRI ANUPAM NAG ALIA AT GURGAON WAS ALSO SEARCHED. SHRI ANUPAM NAGALIA IS CHARTERED ACCOUNT ANT AND, IS A DIRECTOR IN M/S VATIKA LAND BASE PVT. LTD. SHRI VIRENDER BHATI A FLOATED A COMPANY M/S BAANI TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. HE PURCHASED A LAND AT VILLAGE WAZIRABAD, GURGAON IN THE NAME OF M/S BAANI TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. VATIAK GROUP HAS TAKEN OVER THE COMPANY M/S BAANI TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03 FROM SHRI VIRENDER BHATIA OF DELHI. T HIS COMPANY HAD ONLY ONE ASSET IN THE FORM OF LAND MEASURING AROUND 2.36 ACR ES AT VILLAGE WAZIRABAD. THE VALUE OF LAND AS PER BALANCE SHEET OF THE COMPA NY WAS AT RS.2,37,05,540/- AS ON 31/3/2003. THUS, VATIKA GROUP PURCHASED LAND AT WAZIRABAD FROM SHRI VIRENDER BHATIA. ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE COLLECTED DURING PRE-SEARCH ENQUIRY AND FROM THE SEIZED RECORD, THE ASSESSING OFFICER H ELD THAT VATIKA GROUP COMPANY HAD IN-FACT MADE INVESTMENT OF RS.4,95,61,0 00/- IN THE PURCHASE OF LAND MEASURING 2.36 ACRES FROM SHRI VIRENDER BHATIA AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. THE DETAILS OF TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO THE DEAL OF THE SAID LAND WERE SAID TO BE 5 IT(SS)A N0. 6 & C.O NO. 93/DEL/2011 RECORDED IN A DIARY MARKED AS ANNEXURE A-9, PARTICU LARLY ON PAGES 6, BACK SIDE OF PAGE 10 AND PAGE 18 OF THE ANNEXURE. THERE ARE ENTRIES RELATING TO DEAL OF 2.36 ACRES OF LAND AT WAZIRABAD IN DOCUMENT A-9 SEI ZED FROM RESIDENCE OF SHRI ANUPAM NAGALIA, DIRECTOR OF VATIKA LAND BASE (P) LT D. WHO ADMITTED IN HIS STATEMENT ON OATH DURING SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATI ONS THAT THE ENTRIES IN THIS ANNEXURE A-9 RELATE TO THE AFORESAID PROJECT AND TH E SAID LAND WAS PURCHASED FROM VIRENDER BHATIA. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, NOTICE U/S 158BD OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 14/7/2005 REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO F ILE THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED REASONS AS UNDER:- 3.1 A SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED AT TH E RESIDENCE OF SH. VIRENDER ''KUMAR BHATIA IN VATIKA GROUP OF CASES. PERUSAL OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS, ANNEXURE A-13, PAGE 14 , 15, 18 TO 32 SEIZED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE VATIKA GROUP OF COMPANIES, A NNEXURE A-L, PAGE 24 TO 27 SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF SH. ANUPAM NAGALIA REV EALS THAT THE ASSESSEE SH. VIRENDER KUMAR BHATIA HAD RECEIVED UNACCOUNTED CASH OF RS. 2.42 CRORES AGAINST SALE OF LAND AT WAZIRABAD WHICH WAS NOT DIS CLOSED IN THE REGULAR RETURN OF INCOME. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS STATED ABOVE AND MATERIAL AVAI LABLE IN THE FORM OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS, I AM SATISFIED THAT SH. VIRENDER KUMAR B HATIA HAD UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 1.04.1997 TO 08.05.2003 WHICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE REGULAR RETURN OF INCOME. THEREFORE, NOTICE U/S 158BC READ WITH SECTION 158BD IS ISSUED. 4. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF UNDIS CLOSED INCOME ON 1/8/2005 SHOWING UNDISCLOSED INCOME AT NIL. THE AS SESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT ON 17/9/2006. C A OF THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BD. ON 18/7/2007. THE ASSESSEE RAISED AN OBJECTION 6 IT(SS)A N0. 6 & C.O NO. 93/DEL/2011 THAT NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS ASSOCIATED CONCER N DID NOT APPEAR IN THE SEIZED ANNEXURE SUPPLIED TO HIM. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER EXAMINED THE OBJECTION OF LD. AR AND FOUND IT TO BE CORRECT. TH EREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BD READ WITH SECTION 158BC OF TH E ACT INITIATED VIDE NOTICE ISSUED ON 14/7/2005, WERE DROPPED ON 27/7/20 07 AFTER OBTAINING APPROVAL OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX, CENTRAL RANGE-III, NEW DELHI. AFTER DISPOSAL OF THE EARLIER BLOCK ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS. FRESH BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE AGAIN INITIATED ON 27/0 7/2007 AFTER RECORDING SATISFACTION NOTE THAT UNACCOUNTED AMOUNT OF RS.2,4 4,58,812/- WAS PAID BY VATIKA GROUP TO THE ASSESSEE AS MENTIONED ON PAGE 6 , BACKSIDE OF PAGE 10 & PAGE 18 OF DIARY AS PER ANNEXURE A-9. IN RESPONSE T O THE SAID NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE FILED REPLY DATED 14/8/2007 CONTAINING THE REIN THAT FRESH NOTICE IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION SINCE NO ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED IN RESPECT OF PREVIOUS NOTICE. THEREAFTER, ANOTHER NOTICE U/S 14 2(1) OF THE ACT DATED 22/6/2009 WAS ISSUED. THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE, FI LED A REPLY ON 17/7/2006, STATING THAT NEITHER NOTICE DATED 27/7/2007 NOR NOT ICE DATED 26/2/2009 ARE VALID AND BOTH NOTICES ARE WITHOUT JURISDICTION. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND D ETERMINED TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AT RS. 2 ,44,58,812/-. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASS ESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. NOW THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTION. 6. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH IN VATIKA GROUP ON 08.05.2003. ASSESSEE HAD FLOATED A COMPANY M/S BAAN I TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. WHICH WAS TAKEN OVER BY VATIKA GROUP IN A.Y.2003-04 . THE ONLY ASSET WITH THE COMPANY WAS LAND OF 2.36 ACERS VALUED AT RS.2.37 CR ORE ON 31.03.2003 AS PER BALANCE SHEET. THE VATIKA GROUP EXECUTED A COMMERCI AL PROJECT VATIKA WORLD ON THE SAID LAND. AS PER SEIZED MATERIAL UNACCOUNTE D CONSIDERATION FOR THE ABOVE PURCHASE OF LAND THROUGH COMPANY AMOUNTING TO RS.2,44,58,812/- WAS 7 IT(SS)A N0. 6 & C.O NO. 93/DEL/2011 PAID TO THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH PROCEEDINGS U/S 158B D WERE INITIATED VIDE NOTICE DATED 14.07.2005 ISSUED BY ACIT, CEN.CIR.20, NEW DELHI WHO HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION. THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO THE SATISFACTION NOTE VIDE LETTER DATED 25.06.2007. THE AO NOTICED THAT THE SE IZED ANNEXURE REFERRED TO IN THE SATISFACTION NOTE WAS INCORRECT, SO HE ISSUED F RESH NOTICE U/S 158BD ON 27.07.2007. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 30.0 7.2009 I.E. THE LIMITATION HAS BEEN COUNTED FROM THE SECOND NOTICE U/S 158BD. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT FRESH SATISFACTION NOTE APPE ARS ON PAGE 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. AS MENTIONED ON PAGE 6 OF THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER, THE OLD PROCEEDINGS WERE IN RESPECT OF DIFFERENT ANNEXURE A ND NEW PROCEEDINGS WERE IN RESPECT OF ANOTHER ANNEXURE. THE EARLIER PROCEEDING S WERE DROPPED AS THE SAME WERE INITIATED ON THE BASIS OF INCORRECT FACTS/WRON G ANNEXURE. AGAINST A DISCLOSED CONSIDERATION OF RS.2.51 CRORES, ACTUAL C ONSIDERATION WAS RS.5.49 CRORE AS MENTIONED ON PAGE 7 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER. T HE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT SEIZED DOCUMENTS APPEARED ON PAGE 12 AND 13 OF ASSE SSMENT ORDER, MENTIONS THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL. THE LD. DR FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT PAGE 18 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER CLEARLY MENTIONS THAT ORIGINAL DEA L WAS OF RS.5,48,50,000/- OUT OF THE SAME, AN AMOUNT OF RS.52,89,000/- HAS BE EN REDUCED, BEING LOSS SHARED BY SELLER AND REMAINING AMOUNT IS MENTIONED AS NEW AMOUNT OF PURCHASE. THE AO DISCUSSED THE REASONS FOR ADDITION IN PARA 8.1 ONWARDS. ALL ENTRIES IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL HAVE BEEN DECIPHERED UPTO PARA 9.4 OF THE ORDER OF AO AND THE ADDITION WAS MADE. THE LD. DR SUBMITT ED THAT CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY RELYING UPON THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF M/S BAANI TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD WHICH IS CONFIRMED BY ITAT VIDE ORDER DATE D 25.09.2009 FOR DELETING THE ADDITION. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID OR DER OF ITAT IS ON DIFFERENT GROUNDS. THE ASSESSEE CONTROLLED THE SAID COMPANY A ND THE COMPANY PURCHASED LAND IN QUESTION APPARENTLY IN JANUARY, 2 001 FOR RS. 1,57,50,000/- WHILE THE AO TOOK PURCHASE CONSIDERATION AT RS.3,07 ,12,496/- ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENTS OF BROKERS/FARMERS ETC. SO THE ADDITION WAS FOR PURCHASE. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LAND REMAINED IN THE NAME OF SAID COMPANY AND THE 8 IT(SS)A N0. 6 & C.O NO. 93/DEL/2011 NAME OF COMPANY WAS CHANGED TO VATIKA LAND MARKETIN G (P) LTD. THUS, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED HERE IS THE SA LE OF COMPANY (AND INDIRECTLY THE LAND), THE CONSIDERATION FOR WHICH H AS GONE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THIS SALE CONSIDERATION OBVIO USLY CANNOT BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE COMPANY, THOUGH THE AO DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE TO JUSTIFY THE MARKET VALUE OF LAND. SO THE RELIANCE OF CIT(A) IS NOT WELL PLACED. IN PARA 7.5 THE CIT(A) ALSO HELD THAT THE NOTICE U/S 158BD TO B E VOID. THE MAIN REASON IS THAT THE AO OF SEARCHED PERSON SHOULD HAVE RECORDED THE SATISFACTION. APPARENTLY, THE AO OF SEARCHED PERSON AND ASSESSEE WERE SAME IN THIS CASE AS ALL ORDERS IN GROUP CASES AVAILABLE IN PAPER BOOK O F THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN PASSED BY HIM. THEREFORE, THE LD. DRT RELIED UPON T HE DECISION IN THE CASE OF GANAPATI FINCAP SERVICES PVT. LTD., 99 CCH 27 (DEL HIGH COURT). 7. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE PROCEEDINGS INITIA TED ON 27.07.2007 DO NOT RECORD ANY SATISFACTION NOTE AND EARLIER SATISF ACTION NOTE IS NOT RELEVANT AS THE SAID ASSESSMENT MADE IS BARRED BY LIMITATION U/ S 158BF OF THE ACT. THE ADDITION DISPUTED IN THIS APPEAL IS OF RS. 2,44,58, 812/-. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THIS SUM REPRESENTS THE ALLEGED RECEIPT OF ALL EGED ON-MONEY BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE SALE OF LAND OF M/S BANNI TECHNOLOG IES TO VATIKA LTD. NOT BELONGING TO ASSESSEE. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE AFORESAID LAND WAS HELD BY M/S BAANI TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. PRESENTLY KNOWN AS VATIKA LANDMARK PROJECTS PVT. LTD. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE A. O. HAS ADMITTED THAT DECLARED CONSIDERATION OF LAND IS RS. 2,51,02,188/- AND IS DECLARED SALE CONSIDERATION OF LAND OF M/S BAANI TECHNOLOGIES PVT . LTD. TO VATIKA. IN NONE OF THE SHEETS, THERE IS ANY REFERENCE TO A SUM WHICH S HOWS RECEIPT OF THE AMOUNT BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT RECORDING ANY NOTE OF SATISFACTION IN THE CASE OF PERSON SEARCHED, TH E PROCEEDINGS INITIATED ITSELF IS BAD IN LAW AS HELD BY THE HONBEL APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF MANISH MAHESHWARI VS. ACIT REPORTED IN 289 ITR 341 AND IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CALCUTTA KNITWEARS, REPORTED IN 362 ITR 673. THE LD . AR ALSO RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF TAPAN KUMAR DUTTA VS. CIT 9 IT(SS)A N0. 6 & C.O NO. 93/DEL/2011 (2018) 92 TAXMANN.COM 367 (SC) WHEREIN IT IS HELD T HAT PROCEEDING INITIATED ARE ENTIRELY WITHOUT JURISDICTION, WITHOUT ANY MATE RIAL AND HENCE NO PROCEEDINGS U/S I58BD CAN BE INITIATED. FURTHER IF THE PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED ON 27.07.2009 THAN THERE OUGHT TO HAVE BE EN A NOTE OF SATISFACTION, WHEREAS THERE IS ONLY ONE NOTE OF SATISFACTION PREP ARED AND IS DATED 14/7/2005 AND THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON 08.05.200 3 AND THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN FRAMED ON 30.07.2009. THE SEQUE NCE OF EVENT SHOWS THAT THE PROCEEDINGS ARE WITHOUT ANY JURISDICTION. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE CIT(A) VIDE ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE HELD AS UNDER:- 7. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CA SE, SUBMISSIONS MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BY THE APPELLANT AND, DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PLACED ON RECORD. THE APPELLANT HAS RAISED AS MANY AS GROUND 1 TO 8 OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. GROUND NO. 4 OF GROUNDS OF APPEA L IS IN REGARD TO THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT ASSESSMENT FRAMED IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION SINCE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT DATED 1 4.7.2005 HAS BEEN SERVED ON THE APPELLANT AFTER THE TERMINATION OF ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF SEARCHED PERSON NAMELY VATIKA GROUP. THE APPELLA NT HAS SUBMITTED THAT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT DATED 27/7/20 07 IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION SINCE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 158BD OF TH E ACT DATED 27.7.2007 HAS BEEN SERVED ON THE APPELLANT AFTER TERMINATION OF T HE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF SEARCHED PERSON NAMELY VATIKA GROUP. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT, SINCE PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF VATIKA GROUP HAD B EEN TERMINATED ON 31.5.2005 AS A RESULT OF SEARCH, ACTION HAVING BEEN TAKEN ON THEM ON 8.5.2003, NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT ON 27.7.2007 IS APPARENTLY BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION AND THER EFORE, UNSUSTAINABLE. IN SUPPORT RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING D ECISIONS: A) 113 ITD 377 (SB)(DEL) MANOJ AGGARWAL VS. DCIT B) 17 SOT 380 (CHD) ACIT VS. KISHORE LAI BALWANT RA I C) SHRI RADHEY SHYAM BANSAL VS. ACIT IN IT(SS) NO. 12/D/2007 FOR BLOCK 10 IT(SS)A N0. 6 & C.O NO. 93/DEL/2011 PEIROD 1991-92 TO 2001-02 (UPTO 3.08.2002) 7.1. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NEITHER IN THE COMMENTS AND, NOR IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT HAS RECORDED ANY ADVERSE FINDINGS IN REBUTTAL TO THE ABOVE SUBMISSION. THUS, THE FOREMOST ISSUE WHICH ARISES F OR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE FOLLOWING ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 27.07 .2007 RECORDED PRIOR TO ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT DATE D 27.7.2007 IS A VALID SATISFACTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSUMPTION OF JURIS DICTION U/S 158BD OF THE ACT: A NOTICE U/S 158BD WAS ISSUED & SERVED IN THE ABOV E CASE BY MY PREDECESSOR ON THE FOLLOWING SATISFACTION NOTE:- A SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED AT THE R ESIDENCE OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR BHATIA IN VATIKA GROUP OF CASES. PERUSAL OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS, ANNEXURE A-13, PAGE 14 , 15, 18 TO 32 SEIZED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE VATIKA GROUP OF COMPANIES, A NNEXURE A-L, PAGE 24 TO 27 SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF SH. ANUPAM NAGALIA REV EALS THAT THE ASSESSEE SH. VIRENDER KUMAR BHATIA HAD RECEIVED UNACCOUNTED CASH OF RS. 2.42 CRORES AGAINST SALE OF LAND AT WAZIRABAD WHICH WAS NOT DIS CLOSED IN THE REGULAR RETURN OF INCOME. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS STATED ABOVE AND MATERIAL AVAI LABLE IN THE FORM OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS, I AM SATISFIED THAT SH. VIRENDER KUMAR B HATIA HAD UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1997 TO 8.5.2003 WH ICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE REGULAR RETURN OF INCOME... WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT IN THE ABOVE CASE, IT HAS BEEN NOTICED THAT THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE VIZ., SHRI VIRENDER BHATIA DOES NOT APPEAR ON ANY OF THE PAGES MENTIONED IN THE ANNEXURES AS DESCRIBED I N THE SATISFACTION NOTE. THESE ANNEXURES HAVE ALSO BEEN EXAMINED BY YOUR GOO DSELF. 11 IT(SS)A N0. 6 & C.O NO. 93/DEL/2011 HOWEVER, PAGE 6, BACK OF PAGE 10 AND PAGE 18 OF ANN EXURE A-9, SEIZED BY PARTY NO. 5, SHOW THAT AN UNACCOUNTED AMOUNT OF RS. 2,44,58,812/- WAS PAID BY VATIKA GROUP TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE LAND DEAL AT WAZIRABAD, DELHI. IT IS THEREFORE PROPOSED THAT THE PRESENT PROCEEDIN GS U/S 158BD MAY BE DROPPED AND A FRESH NOTICE U/S 158 BD MAY BE ISSUED ON THE BASIS ANNEXURE A-9, SEIZED BY PARTY NO. 5. THIS PROPOSAL HAS ALSO BEEN DISALLOWANCE CAUSED WITH THE LD. C.L.T. (C)0I, NEW DELHI IN YOUR PRESEN CE. 7.2. AN IDENTICAL ISSUE CAME UP BEFORE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI RADHEY SHYAM BANSAL IN 1T(SS) NO. 12/D /2007 FOR BLOCK PERIOD 1991-92 TO 2001-02 (UPTO 3.08.2002) WHEREIN THE HON BLE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT, ANY SATISFACTION RECORDED AFTER COMPLETION OF ASSES SMENT IN THE CASE OF SEARCHED PERSON DOES NOT CONSTITUTE VALID SATISFACT ION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT. IN THAT CASE, THE LETTER WAS DATED 15.07.2003 AND, WAS AFTER THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF SHRI MANOJ AGGARWAL (SEARCHED PERSON) ON 29.08.2002. IT WAS HELD FOLLOW ING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. KISHORE LAI BALWANT RAI (CHD.) (RE PORTED IN 17 SOT 380) AS UNDER: 7 THAT TAKES US TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE LETTE R DATED 15.07.2003 WRITTEN BY THE DCIT, CENTRAL-3, NEW DELHI, WHO IS T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER MANOJ AGGARWAL, TO THE ASS ESSING OFFICER, CIRCLE 37(1), NEW DELHI, WHO IS THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSE SSING RADHEY SHYAM BANSAL (AASESSEE BEFORE US) CAN BE CONSTRUED TO REP RESENT THE REQUISITE SATISFACTION. ON THIS ISSUE, THE CHANDIGARH BENCH O F THE TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED AN ELABORATE ORDER ON 29TH JUNE, 2007 IN THE CASE OF ACIT, YAMUNANAGAR VS KISHORE LAL BALWANT RAI AND OTHER CO NNECTED CASES. A COPY OF THIS ORDER IS AT PAGES 75 TO 168 OF THE PAP ER BOOK. STRONG RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THIS ORDER BY THE LEARNED REPRESENTAT IVE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO CONTEND THAT THE SATISFACTION HAS TO BE RECORDED DU RING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF THE PERSON PUT TO SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OR 12 IT(SS)A N0. 6 & C.O NO. 93/DEL/2011 REQUISITION UNDER SECTION 132A BECAUSE ONLY IN THE COURSE OF SUCH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WILL THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE IN A POSITION NOT ONLY TO DETECT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME BUT ALSO TO I DENTIFY THE PERSON TO WHOM IT BELONGS. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER OBSERVED THAT AFTER THE ASSESSMENT OF THE PERSON SEARCHED IS COMPLETED, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WOULD BECOME 'FUNCTUS OFFICIO' REGARDING THE POWERS AND FUNCTION S AND OUTLINED IN SECTION 158BC AND HE CAN NO LONGER BE CONSTRUED AS AN ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHAPTER XIV-B IN SO FAR AS THE P ERSON SEARCH IS CONCERNED. ONCE THE ASSESSMENT OF THE PERSON SEARCH ED IS COMPLETED, THE TASK OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO IDENTIFY THE UNDIS CLOSED INCOME AND THE PERSON TO WHOM SUCH INCOME BELONGS, ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH, ATTAINS FINALITY AND THEREAFTER IT IS NOT OPEN TO HIM RECORD ANY SATISFACTION OF ANY KIND. HE IS NO LONGE R 'IN SEISIN' OF THE ASSESSMENT OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AND CAN NOT THERE FORE ASSUME JURISDICTION OVER THE SAME AND RECORD ANY SATISFACT ION. WE RESPECTFULLY AGREE WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE CHANDIGARH BENCH A S TO THE TIME FRAME WITHIN WHICH THE SATISFACTION SHOULD BE RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSMENT OF THE PERS ON SEARCHED. IN THE CASE ON HAND, THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT OF MANOJ AGGARWAL WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 158BC ON 29.8.2002. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER ASSESSING HIM BECAME FUNCTUS OFFICIO AND WAS LEGALLY UNDER A DISABILITY TO RECORD ANY SATISFACTION TO THE EFFECT THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO RADHEY SHAYM BANSAL. THEREFORE, THE LETTER WRITTEN ON 15.7.2003 BY THE DCIT. CENTRAL-3, NEW DELHI WHO WAS THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER MANOJ AGGARWAL, CAN NOT BE CONSTR UED TO BE THE SATISFACTION AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 158BD SINCE IT WAS WRITTEN AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT OF MANOJ AGGARWA L. 8. WE THUS HOLD THAT NO SATISFACTION HAS BEEN RECOR DED UNDER SECTION 158BD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSMENT OF MANOJ AGGARWAL AND THAT THE LETTER WRITTEN BY HI M ON 15.7.2003 TO THE 13 IT(SS)A N0. 6 & C.O NO. 93/DEL/2011 ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER RADHEY S HAM BANSAL CANNOT BE LEGALLY TAKEN TO BE THE REQUISITE SATISFACTION. THE RESULT IS THAT THE ASSESSMENT OF RADHEY SHYAM BANSAL HAS BEEN MADE WIT HOUT SATISFYING THE MANDATORY PRECEDENT UNDER SECTION 158BD. 7.3 IT MAY BE ADDED HERE THAT THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL FURTHER IN PARA 9 AND 10, HELD THAT THE NOTICE DATED 22.03.2004 IS ALSO B ELATED SINCE SUCH NOTICE WAS ISSUED ABOUT 19 MONTHS FROM THE COMPLETION OF A SSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF SHRI MANOJ AGGARWAL. IT WAS HELD THEREIN AS UNDER: 9 THE NEXT QUESTION TO BE ADDRESSED IS WHETHER THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 158BD REQUIRES TO BE ISSUED WITHIN A REASONABLE TIM E AND IF IT IS NOT TO ISSUED, WHETHER THE ASSESSMENT MADE PURSUANT TO THE NOTICE IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE ON THAT GROUND. THE CONTENTION OF THE LEA RNED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, IT MAY BE RECALLED, WAS THAT THE NOTI CE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED AT LEAST WITHIN A REASONABLE TIE AFTER THE C OMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. IN THE PRESENT C ASE, THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT OF MANOJ AGGARWAL WAS COMPLETED ON 29.08 .2002 BUT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 158BD WAS ISSUED ONLY ON 22.03 .2004, THAT IS ABOUT 19 MONTHS LATER. THE FURTHER CONTENTIONS BASED ON T HE JUDGMENT OF THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN KHANDUBHAI VASANJI DESAIS CA SE (SUPRA) WAS THAT THE NOTICE SHOULD BE ISSUED WITHIN 15 DAYS FROM THE COMPLETION OF THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF THE SEARCHED PERSON OR AT ANY RATE WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM THAT DATE, THE SANCTITY BEHIND THIS PE RIOD BEING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132(9A). IN KHANDUBHAIS CASE , THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT REFERRED TO THE TIME LIMIT OF 15 DAYS HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT THAT UNDER SECTION 132(9A) AS IT STOOD AT THE RELEVANT T IME THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER WHO CONDUCTED THE SEARCH AGAINST A PERSON HAS TO HA ND OVER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, DOCUMENTS AND ASSETS SEIZED TO THE INCOME TAX OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON TO WHO THE BOOKS OF AC COUNT, DOCUMENTS AND ASSETS SEIZED RELATE, WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE SEIZURE AND THEREAFTER THE 14 IT(SS)A N0. 6 & C.O NO. 93/DEL/2011 ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO SERVE NOTICE ON SU CH PERSON TO WHOM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ETC. RELATE REQUIRING HIM TO FURN ISH A BLOCK RETURN UNDER SECTION 158BC. THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT WAS CONCERNED WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT AND ONE OF THE CONTENTIONS WAS EXPRESSED IN THE FORM OF AN APPREHE NSION THAT A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 158BD CAN BE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER I THE CASE OF THE OTHER PERSON (OTHER THAN THE PERSON WHO WAS SEA RCHED) AT ANY TIME. WHILE REPELLING THIS CONTENTION AND PUTTING AT REST THE APPREHENSION SAYING THAT IT IS ILL FOUNDED, THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 158BD HAS TO BE ISSUED WITHIN A REASONABLE PERIOD FROM THE DATE OF THE SEARCH ITSELF AND IT WAS POINTED OUT, TAKING CUE FROM SECTION 132(9A), THAT IT SHOULD BE DONE WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE SEIZUR E. THE OBVIOUS IMPLICATION IS THAT THE SATISFACTION THAT THE INCOM E REFLECTED IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL BELONGS TO SOME PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERS ON SEARCHED SHOULD ALSO BE REACHED WITHIN THE AFORESAID PERIOD OF 15 D AYS SO THAT THE SAME CAN BE TRANSMITTED ALONGWITH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, DOCUMENTS ETC. SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH. THE PERIOD OF 15 DAYS HAS BEEN A MENDED TO 60 DAYS BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2002, W.E.F. 1 ST JUNE, 2002. IT IS NOTEWORTHY THAT THE AMENDMENT HAD COME INTO FORCE EVEN DURING THE TENDE NCY OF THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF MANOJ AGGARWA L. HOWEVER, EVEN AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT OF MAN OJ AGGARWAL ON 29.08.2002, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE ASSESSEE T OOK ABOUT 19 MONTHS TO ISSUE THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 15BD. THE PERIOD OF 60 DAYS MENTIONED IN SECTION 132(9A) IS ACTUALLY FOR HANDLING OVER THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNT ETC, TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON WHO IS A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON SEARCHED AND IT ACTUALLY STAR TS FROM THE DATE OF SEARCH. THE PERIOD WAS HIGHLIGHTED BY THE GUJARAT H IGH COURT ONLY TO EMPHASIS THE SPEED AND SWIFTNESS WITHIN WHICH THE P ROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE TAKEN AGAINST SUCH PERSONS. THAT OBJECT DOES NOT AP PEAR TO HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED IN THE PRESENT CASE I VIEW OF THE UNREASON ABLE DELAY IN ISSUING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 158BD NOT ONLY AFTER THE D ATE OF COMPLETION OF THE 15 IT(SS)A N0. 6 & C.O NO. 93/DEL/2011 BLOCK ASSESSMENT OF MANOJ AGGARWAL. EVEN IF THE PER IOD OF 60 DAYS IS TO BE RECKONED FROM 15.07.2003, THE DATE ON WHICH THE ASS ESSING OFFICER OF RADHEY SYAM BANSAL, THERE IS A DELAY OF ALMOST 8 MO NTHS BEFORE ISSUE OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 158BD . IN SUCH CIRCUMSTAN CES, WE HOLD THAT THE NOTICE HAVING BEEN ISSUED WELL BEYOND A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME, THE ASSESSMENT MADE ON THE ASSESSEE IS BAD IN LAW. 7.4. FURTHER, SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF BISHAN CHAND MUKESH KUMAR REPORTEDAS SHRI MANOJ AGGARWAL VS. DCIT REPORTED IN 113 ITD 377 ALSO UPHELD THE AFORESAID PROPOSITION BY OBSERVING AS UN DER: 125. IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE MAY NOW EXAMINE WHETH ER THERE IS ANY RECORD OF SATISFACTION THAT MEETS THE REQUIREMENT O F LAW AS ENUNCIATED ABOVE. WE HAVE ALREADY REPRODUCED THE COPY OF THE S AID RECORD DATED 19- 12-2002. IT IS SIGNED BY THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF IN COME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3, NEW DELHI. IT IS THEREFORE ADMITTEDLY RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAKING THE SECTION 158BD ASSESSMENT AS THE NOTICE U NDER THE SAID SECTION HAS ALSO BEEN ISSUED BY HIM. THIS NOTE RECORDS THAT SEARCH IN THE CASE OF SHRI MANOJ AGGARWAL AND ASSOCIATE CONCERNS AND THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT MADE ON HIM CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHES THE FACT THAT HE WAS INVOLVED IN PROVIDING BOGUS ACCOMMODATION BOOK ENTRIES TO VARIO US PERSONS ON COMMISSION BASIS AND FOR THIS PURPOSE HE HAD USED T HE NAMES AND BANK ACCOUNTS OF VARIOUS COMPANIES, BENAMI PROPRIETORSHI P CONCERNS IN THE NAMES OF HIS EMPLOYEES, IN THE NAMES OF RELATIVES, VARIOUS HUF ENTITIES AND FIRMS AND ONE SUCH CONCERN IS M/S. BISHANCHAND MUKESH KUMAR THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF WHICH WERE OPERATED BY S/SHRI MUKE SH KUMAR AND BISHANCHAND AGGARWAL; THAT THE SOURCES OF CASH AND CLEARING DEPOSITS AND THE WITHDRAWALS FROM THESE BANK ACCOUNTS NEED T O BE EXAMINED; THESE ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN USED FOR ACCOMMODATION BOO K ENTRIES AND HENCE, UNDISCLOSED INCOME HAS ARISEN IN THE HANDS O F THIS CONCERN WHICH HAS BEEN FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZ URE OPERATIONS IN THE 16 IT(SS)A N0. 6 & C.O NO. 93/DEL/2011 CASE OF SHRI MANOJ AGGARWAL AND HIS ASSOCIATE CONCE RNS; THUS, PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 158BD ARE APPLICABLE IN T HIS CASE. ADMITTEDLY, THIS NOTE IS AFTER THE DATE OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL WHICH WAS FINALIZED ON 29-8-2002. FURTHER, THE NOTE OF SATISFACTION IS NOT RECORDED BY THE DV. CIT, CENTRA L CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI ACTING AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAKING THE ASSESSME NT UNDER SECTION 158BC OF MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL SINCE THE SAID ASSESS MENT HAS BEEN FINALIZED EARLIER. CLEARLY THE NOTE OF SATISFACTION DATED 19-12- 2002 IS BEYOND THE DATE OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT IN THE SECTION 158BC PROCEEDINGS DATED 29-8-2002 IN THE CASE OF SHRI MANOJ AGGARWAL. THEREFORE, THE SATISFACTION RECORDED IS BELATED.' 7.5. I FIND THAT THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANT ARE ID ENTICAL TO THE AFORESAID JUDICIAL DECISIONS IN AS MUCH AS HERETO THE SATISFA CTION WAS RECORDED ON 27.07.2007 I.E. SUBSEQUENT TO THE COMPLETION OF ASS ESSMENT IN THE CASE OF M/S VATIKA GROUP ON 31.05.2005 WHICH DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT AND AS SUCH, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISIONS, NOTICE ISSUED ON 27.07.2007 IS HELD TO B E WITHOUT JURISDICTION. IN FACT, IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT ALSO THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 27.07.2007 I.E. AFTER A GAP OF APPROXIMATELY 25 MONTHS AND HENCE, E VEN THE NOTICE ISSUED IS HIGHLY BELATED. IN OTHERWORDS, THE NOTICE UNDER SEC TION 158BD HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT WELL BEYOND A REASONABLE PE RIOD OF TIME- RECKONED EITHER FROM THE DATE OF SEARCH (8.05.2003), OR FROM THE DATE OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT ON M/S VATIKA GROUP (31.05.2005). THUS, SINCE THERE WAS NO EFFECTIVE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE WITHIN A REASONABL E PERIOD, THE ASSESSMENT REQUIRES TO BE VACATED AND, IS THUS QUASHED. INFACT , THE SATISFACTION HAS BEEN RECORDED ON 27/7/2007 I.E. AFTER THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT OF SEARCHED PERSON ITSELF SHOWS THAT THIS IS NOT A SATISFACTION RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF A SEARCHED PERSON AS IS THE MANDATE OF S ECTION 158BD OF THE ACT, JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MANIS H MAHESHWARI REPORTED IN 17 IT(SS)A N0. 6 & C.O NO. 93/DEL/2011 289 ITR 341 AND. DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AM ITY HOTELS PVT. LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED IN 272 ITR 75. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HELD THAT, INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT FULFILLING THE MANDATORY PRECON DITIONS IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. KEEPING IN VIEW MY DISCUSSION ON THE LEGAL ISSUE RENDERED ABOVE HOLDING THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE AO TO BE INVALID , I DO NOT DEEM IT NECESSARY OR EXPEDIENT TO CONSIDER OTHER LEGAL GROU NDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL SINCE THE SAME HAVE BECAME ON LY OF ACADEMIC NATURE. THIS DISPOSES OFF GROUND NO(S). 1 TO 4 OF GROUNDS O F APPEAL. 8. GROUND NO. 5 TO 5.6 OF THE GROUNDS OF APPE AL ARE IN RESPECT OF ADDITION MADE OF RS. 2,44,58,812/- BY CONCLUDING THAT MATERI AL SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SHRI ANUPAM NAGALIA, DIRECT OR IN VATIKA GROUP CLEARLY MAKES OUT A CASE OF CONCEALMENT BY THE ASSESSEE AND RECEIPT OF ON MONEY ON THE SALE OF LAND BY APPELLANT TO VATIKA GROUP. THE DOCUMENTS AS SEIZED AND RELIED ARE MARKED AS PAGE 6 OF ANNEXURE A-9 AND PAG E 18 OF ANNEXURE A-9 AND BACKSIDE OF PAGE 10. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THOUGH UNDISPUTEDLY THE LAND WAS HELD IN THE NAME OF M/S B AANI TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. (PRESENTLY KNOWN AS VATIKA LANDMARK PROJECTS P VT. LTD.) BUT YET THE UNACCOUNTED OUT OF BOOKS RECEIPT HAVE TO BE ASSESSE D IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT SINCE IT WAS THE APPELLANT WHO HAD TRANSF ERRED BAANI TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. TO VATIKA. IN ARRIVING AT THE ABOVE CONCL USION THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT THE NET CONSIDERED ON SALE O F LAND WAS RS. 4,95,61,000/- AND DECLARED CONSIDERATION WAS RS. 2, 51,02,188/-, SUM OF RS. 2,44,58,812/- REPRESENTED UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. I FIND THAT THE DOCUMENT AS RELIED UPON HAVE ALREADY BEEN SUBJECT M ATTER OF CONSIDERATION IN THE CASE OF M/S BAANI TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. WHEREI N TOO ADDITION WAS MADE OF RS. 2,59,55,460/- ON IDENTICAL BASIS I.E. BY HOL DING THAT NET CONSIDERATION RECEIVED WAS RS. 4.95,61,000/- ON THE BASIS OF DOCU MENTS FOUND FROM SH. ANUPAM NAGALIA. IT WAS HELD BY THE LEARNED COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN THE SAID ORDER AS UNDER: 18 IT(SS)A N0. 6 & C.O NO. 93/DEL/2011 9.30 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL. I HAVE ALSO C AREFULLY SEEN THE COPIES OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE APPELLA NT IN THE PAPER BOOK. BEFORE THE ISSUE IS DECIDED IT IS PERTINENT TO MENT ION THAT APPELLANT COMPANY EARLIER HAD NAME OF M/S BANNI TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. AT THAT TIME THIS COMPANY WAS CONTROLLED BY SHRI VIRENDER B HATIA AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. A SEARCH IN VIRENDER BHATIA GROUP U/S 132( 1) OF THE IT ACT CONDUCTED ON 20.3.2002. IN THE SAID SEARCH, THE APP ELLANT COMPANY WAS ALSO COVERED. IN THE ASSESSMENT U/S 158BC OF THE M/ S BANNI TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS . 1,49,62,500/- U/S 158BC ON ACCOUNT OF UNDER STATEMENT IN PURCHASE PRI CE OF 2.36 ACRES LAND IN WAZIRABAD, GURGAON. IN THAT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT ACTUAL PURCHASE CONSIDERATION WAS RS.3,07,12,496/- AGAINST THE AMOUNT IS RECORDED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF RS. 1,57,50,000 /-. ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION OF RS. 1,49,62,500/- WAS MADE. THIS ADDITI ON MADE BY DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI WAS DELETED BY LD. CIT (A)-XVIII, NEW DELHI VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 26.12.2005 IN APPEAL NO.2/05-0 6. THE MAIN REASON FOR DELETING THE ADDITION BY LD. CIT(A) WAS THAT NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE A CTION AND THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENTS OF THE BROKER A ND FARMERS WHO SOLD THEIR LAND TO M/S BANNI TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. CLEA RLY THE ADDITION MADE IN THIS ASSESSMENT IS ALSO IN RESPECT OF SAME PIECE OF LAND OF 2.36 ACRES AT WAZIRABAD, GURGAON. THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY PURCHASE D THE LAND FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS.4,95,61,000/- FROM M?S BAANI TE CHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. CONTROLLED BY SHRI VIRENDER BHATIA. IT IS AN ADMITT ED FACT THAT APPELLANT, M/S VATIKA LANDMARK (P) LTD. IS A NEW NAME OF M/S B ANNI TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. THIS FACT HAS BEEN MENTIONED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER THE HEAD NAME OF THE ASSESS EE. THUS M/S VATIKA LANDMARK (P) LTD. (APPELLANT) IS SAME AS M/S BANNI TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD. EXCEPT THE CHANGE OF NAME, I FAIL TO UNDER STAND AS TO HOW THE 19 IT(SS)A N0. 6 & C.O NO. 93/DEL/2011 APPELLANT COULD PURCHASE LAND FROM ITSELF AND PAY M ONEY TO ITSELF. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY PAID ANY UN- ACCOUNTED MONEY TO M/S BANNI TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD. OR SHRI VIRENDER BHATIA. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STRONGLY CONTENDED THAT THE PLEA OF THE APPELLANT THAT SHRI ANUPAM NAG ALIA IS NOT EMPLOYEE OF THE APPELLANT AND THEREFORE DOCUMENTS SEIZED FROM H IS RESIDENCE CANNOT BE USED AGAINST THE APPELLANT HAS TO BE REJECTED. WHIL E MAKING THIS CONTENTION THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT SH RI ANUPAM NAGALIA IS LOOKING AFTER THE FINANCIAL AFFAIRS OF THE APPELLAN T COMPANY. EVEN IF IT IS PRESUMED THAT SHRI ANUPAM NAGALIA IS IN FACT LOOKIN G AFTER THE FINANCIAL AFFAIRS OF VATIKA GROUPS OF COMPANIES HE COULD NOT BE AWARE OF THE ACTUAL PURCHASE CONSIDERATION PAID BY THE APPELLANT COMPA NY FOR PURCHASED OF 2.36 ACRES OF LAND AT WAZIRABAD, GURGAON. THIS IS S O BECAUSE AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE OF THE SAID LAND THE APPELLANT WAS NOT IN CONTROL OF VATIKA GROUP. A PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS FOUND FROM THE RE SIDENCE OF SHRI ANUPAM NAGALIA AND SEIZED AS PER ANNEXURE A-9 CLEAR LY INDICATES THAT THEY ARE SOME CALCULATIONS. NO DEFINITE CONCLUSION CAN BE DRAWN FROM THESE DOCUMENTS. ANY CONCLUSION FROM THESE DOCUMENT S COULD HAVE BEEN DRAWN ONLY IF SUCH CONCLUSION IS SUPPORTED BY THE A UTHOR OF THE DOCUMENT I.E. SHRI ANUPAM NAGALIA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO RECORD ANY STATEMENT OF SHRI ANUPAM NAGALIA PAGE NO.5 OF THE A SSESSMENT ORDER REFERS TO AN STATEMENT OF SHRI ANUPAM NAGALIA AND I N THIS STATEMENT SHRI ANUPAM NAGALIA HAS CLEARLY STATED THAT PAGE NO.6 OF ANNEXURE A-9 IS A ROUGH WORKING DONE TO ARRIVE AT A DECISION WHETHER AT ALL THERE IS VIABILITY IN THE PROJECT. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT FIGURES STATED ARE ROUGH AND HYPOTHETICAL. IN VIEW OF THIS STATEMENT AND THE NAT URE OF DOCUMENTS I AM AN AGREEMENT WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT THAT THESE DOCUMENTS ARE DUMB DOCUMENTS AND ARE INCAPABLE OF AY INTERPRE TATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MERELY DONE SOME CALCULATIONS AND HAS ARRIVED AT A CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENTS O F RS.2,58,55,460/-. OTHER DOCUMENTS BEING SHARE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND LETTER TO DIRECTOR, 20 IT(SS)A N0. 6 & C.O NO. 93/DEL/2011 TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING, CHANDIGARH, HARYANA ALSO D O NOT INDICATE TOWARDS ANY UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS IN PURCHASE OF LAND. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.2,59,55,460/-. THE SAME IS DELETED. 8.1. THE ABOVE ORDER STANDS CONFIRMED BY THE HONBL E TRIBUNAL BY ORDER DATED 25.09.2009 BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 8 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE GON E THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT ON PAGE NO. 10 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS MADE ADDITION ON THE BASIS THAT ORIGINALLY, THE PROPERTY IN QUEST ION WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE AT A COST OF RS. 3.07 CRORES AT THE RATE O F RS. 1.30 CRORES PER ACRE IN JANUARY, 2001 AND THEREAFTER VATIKA GROUP HEADED BY SHRI ANIL BHALLA PURCHASED THIS LAND IN NOVEMBER 2002. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE PROPERTY RATES HAVE INCREASED MAN IFOLD DURING THE PERIOD JANUARY, 2001 TO NOVEMBER, 2002 AD ON THIS B ASIS, HE HAS JUSTIFIED THE CONSIDERATION OF COST OF PROPERTY AT RS. 495.61 LAKHS. IN THIS BACKGROUND, WE FIND THAT WHEN THE PROPERTY IN QUEST ION WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IN JANUARY, 2001, THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF PROPERTY RATES IN NOVEMBER, 2002 WHEN IT IS SAID THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO VATIKA GROUP HEADED BY SHRI ANIL BHALLA. REGARDING PURCHASE CONSIDERATION AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE IN JANUARY, 2001, WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE L EARNED CIT(A) IN PARA NO. 9.30 OF HIS ORDER AS REPRODUCED ABOVE THAT THERE WA S SEARCH IN VARINDER BHATIA GROUP CONDUCTED ON 20.03.2002 IN WHICH THE A SSESSEE UNDER ITS FORMER NAME OF M/S BANNI TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. WAS ALSO COVERED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS. 1,49,62,500/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNDER STATEMENT IN PURCHASE PRICE OF RS. 2.36 ACRES OF LA ND ON THE BASIS THAT ACTUAL PURCHASE CONSIDERATION WAS RS. 3,07,12,496/- AS AGAINST THE AMOUNT OF RS. 157.50 LAKHS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS. T HAT ADDITION HAS BEEN 21 IT(SS)A N0. 6 & C.O NO. 93/DEL/2011 DELETED BY LEARNED CIT(A) BY WAY OF HIS ORDER DATED 26.12.2005. A CLEAR FINDING IS GIVEN BY LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION IN THE PRESENT CASE IS THE SAME LAND OF 2.36 ACRES LAND IN WAZIRAB AD, GURGAON. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF ITS VALUE IN NOVEMBER, 2002. THIS IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THE PR ESENT YEAR FOR A SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 495.61 LAKHS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCOUNTED FOR LESSER AMOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS MAKING ADDITION ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHAS ED LAND FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 495.61 LAKHS BUT HAS DECLARED LESSER AMOUNT OF PURCHASE VALUE. THIS VALUE OF RS. 495.61 LAKHS IS B EING JUSTIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS THAT THE VALUE OF TH IS LAND WAS RS. 3.07 CRORES IN JANUARY, 2001 TO NOVEMBER 2002, ITS VALUE OF RS. 495.61 LAKHS IN NOVEMBER, 2002 IS VERY MUCH REASONABLE AND JUSTI FIED. THIS ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOWS THAT AS PER HIM RS. 495.61 LAKHS, IS THE VALUE OF LAND IN QUESTION IN NOVEMBER, 2002 BUT THE SAME WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IN JANUARY, 2001 AND HENC E WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE PRESENT CASE ON THE BASIS THAT PURCHASE CONSIDERATION WAS UNDER ACCOUNT ED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS, WE FIND NO GO OD REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. WE, THER EFORE, UPHOLD THE SAME. 9 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8.2. LASTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO REFE RRED AS TO THE ALLEGATION THAT LAND SOLD WAS PURCHASED IN JANUARY, 2001 OF RS. 3.0 7 CRORES AS AGAINST THE DECLARED AMOUNT OF RS. 1.57 CRORES AND, THUS SALE A T RS. 2.51 CRORES IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS SEEN THAT ADDITIO N WAS ALSO DELETED BY AN ORDER DATED 26.12.2005 BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 8.12 MOREOVER, IT IS A MATTER OF RECORD THAT THERE IS NO CORROBORATIVE POSITIVE EVIDENCE IN ADDITION TO THE STATEMENTS OF THE SEARCHED PARTIES TO 22 IT(SS)A N0. 6 & C.O NO. 93/DEL/2011 DRAW A CONCLUSION THAT THE APPELLANT HAD UNDISCLOSE D INCOME WHICH HE HAD INVESTED IN THE PURCHASE OF THE LAND. ON A PERU SAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE TAKEN AT THE FAG END OF THE LIMITATION PERIOD. THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENTS OF THE SELLERS OF THE LAND AND, SHRI SATPAL. THESE STATEMENTS HAD BEEN PUT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION, INSPI TE OF SPECIFIC REQUEST BY THE ASSESSEE. ALL SUCH MATERIAL IS OF NO EVIDENT IARY VALUE IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF KISHNI CH AND CHELLA RAM VS. CIT REPORTED IN 125 ITR 713. THE AGREEMENT HAVE ALS O NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE, SINCE THEY ARE CANCELLED AND, MERE PHOTOCOPI ES. INFACT, NONE HAS BEEN CONFRONTED TO THE PERSONS STATED TO BE SIGNATO RIES TO THE AGREEMENT. THUS, EVEN THEY CANNOT BE RELIED UPON. IN SUPPORT O F HIS AVERMENTS, THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THE VALUATION REPORT B Y A REGISTERED VALUER. SIMILARLY, THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO PROVIDED COMPARAB LE INSTANCES OF PROPERTIES IN THE SAME VICINITY ALONGWITH PHOTOCOPI ES OF THE TITLE DEEDS. THE APPELLANT HAS FURTHER STATED THAT NO EXTRA ORDI NARY AMOUNT OF CASH OR ANY OTHER LIQUID ASSET OR INVESTMENT OR ANY AGREEME NT TO SELL ETC. HAS BEEN FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERA TIONS WHICH COULD BE ATTRIBUTED TOWARDS ANY UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OVER AND ABOVE THE STATED CONSIDERATION. I THEREFORE HOLD THAT THE ADDITION O F RS. 1,49,62,500/- TOWARDS ALLEGED INVESTMENT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN LAND AT WAZIRABAD. GURGAON HAS NOT BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH AND THE SAME IS DELETED. 8.3. IN LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID, I FIND THAT, ADDITI ON SO MADE OF RS. 2,48,58.812/- IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE AND IS THUS DELE TED. THUS, THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN THE CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THE ADDITION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE DUE TO THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN BY TH E CIT(A). FURTHER, THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT RECORDING ANY NO TE OF SATISFACTION IN THE CASE OF PERSON SEARCHED, THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED ITSEL F IS BAD IN LAW AS HELD BY THE 23 IT(SS)A N0. 6 & C.O NO. 93/DEL/2011 APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF MANISH MAHESHWARI VS. ACI T 289 ITR 341 AND IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CALCUTTA KNITWEARS, 362 ITR 673. TH EREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A). THUS, AP PEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 9. REGARDING THE CROSS-OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE, THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT SINCE NO ORDER DROPPING THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 158BD OF THE ACT DATED 14/7/2005 WAS EVER BEEN SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, SUBSEQ UENT NOTICE ISSUED U/S 158BD OF THE ACT DATED 27/7/2007 WAS NOT A VALID NO TICE AND HENCE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 30/07/2009 WAS W ITHOUT JURISDICTION. THE LD. AR FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT MERE FACT THAT THE DECISION TO DROP THE PROCEEDINGS IS NOT COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE INTEGRATED AS EVIDENCE OF THE F ACT THAT PROCEEDINGS WERE BARRED BY LIMITATION THAT REMAIN PENDING TILL THE DATE OF LIMITATION AS MISCONCEIVED AND ERRONEOUS CONCLUSION. IN FACT, ON CE IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT NO ORDER DROPPING PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE, IT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN HELD THAT NOTICE ISSUED U/S 158B D OF THE ACT DATED 22/7/2007 WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION HELD BY HONBLE APEX COURT INC CASE OF TRUSTEES HHH, THE NIZAM SUPPLEMENTAL FAMILY TRUST V S. CIT 242 ITR 381 AND THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. KLM ROYAL TOUCH AIRLINES VS. CIT 292 ITR 49. THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT NOTICE U/S 158BD OF THE ACT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION SINCE, THE NOTICE U/S 158BD DATED 27/7/2007 DID NOT RECORD ANY SATISFACTION AS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF NEW DELHI AUTO FINANCE PVT. LTD. V S. JCIT 300 ITR 83 FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. MAHESH MAHESHWARI 289 ITR 341. THE LD. AR FURTHER CONTEN DED THAT SATISFACTION RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE ORDER SHEE T AND NOT IN THE NOTICE IS NOT VALID SATISFACTION SINCE SATISFACTION U/S 158BD OF THE ACT HAS TO BE RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCH PER SON AND NOT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, SUCH PURPOR TED SATISFACTION AS HAS BEEN 24 IT(SS)A N0. 6 & C.O NO. 93/DEL/2011 RECORDED IN THE ORDER SHEET AND NOT COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A VALID SATISFACTION. AND, THEREFORE, DOES NOT CONFE R VALID JURISDICTION TO FRAME THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT. 10. THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 11. AS REGARDS THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE, WE HAVE HEARD AT LENGTH BOTH THE PARTIES. SECTION 158BD WHICH READS AS UNDE R:- 158BD. UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF ANY OTHER PERSON WHER E THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BE LONGS TO ANY PERSON, OTHER THAN THE PERSON WITH RESPECT TO WHOM SEARCH W AS MADE UNDER SECTION 132 OR WHOSE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCU MENTS OR ANY ASSETS WERE REQUISITIONED UNDER SECTION 132A, THEN, THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED SHALL B E HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTH ER PERSON AND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROCEED AGAINST SUCH OTHER PERSON AND THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER SHALL APPLY ACCORDINGLY. THE SATISFACTION RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER REVENUE IS INCORPORATED IN THE ORDER SHEET AND NOT IN THE NOTI CE. THUS, IT IS NOT A VALID SATISFACTION, AS SATISFACTION U/S 158BD OF THE ACT HAS TO BE RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AND NOT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE OTHER PERSON I.E. ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THIS SAT ISFACTION WHICH WAS RECORDED IN THE ORDER SHEET AND ALSO NOT COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE, IS NOT A VALID SATISFACTION, THIS PREPOSITION OF THE LD. AR SUSTAI NS. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. DR IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SAME FOR ALL TH E MENTIONED ASSESSEES DO NOT PERMIT/ALLOW THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT TO RECORD SA TISFACTION FOR EACH OF THE ASSESSEE SEPARATELY. IT IS A MANDATE AS PER THE PRO VISIONS OF THE ACT AND CANNOT BE OVERLOOKED. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOE S NOT HAVE VALID JURISDICTION TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT. THUS, THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 25 IT(SS)A N0. 6 & C.O NO. 93/DEL/2011 14. IN RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED A ND THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH DECEMBER, 2018 . SD/- SD/- (N. K. SAINI) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) VICE PRESIDENT JUDI CIAL MEMBER DATED: 13/12/2018 R. NAHEED COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 26 IT(SS)A N0. 6 & C.O NO. 93/DEL/2011 DATE OF DICTATION 15.11.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 15.11.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/PS 13.12.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT 13.12.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 13.12.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER 27 IT(SS)A N0. 6 & C.O NO. 93/DEL/2011