Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - Agartala , Agartala V. Oscar Motors Pvt. Ltd., Agartala

ITA 124/GTY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6461 (ITAT-GUWAHATI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K BHARDWAJ SHRI SANDIP SENG
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Block assessment
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 32; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI BEN CH, GUWAHATI . . , . . BEFORE SRI S.S. GODARA, JM AND DR. A.L. SAINI, AM ITA NO. 124 & 130/GAU/2018 C.O. NO.17/GAU/2018 (A/O ITA NO.124/GAU/2018) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14) DCIT,CIRCLE-AGARTALA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MANTRI BARI ROAD, NETAJI CHOWMUHANI, AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA VS. OSCAR MOTORS PVT. LTD, CHINAIHONI, NATUN NAGAR, AGARTALA, TRIPURA ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT / / CO-OBJECTOR ) ./ PAN NO. AABCO4539L ITA NO. 126 & 129/GAU/2018 C.O. NO.19/GAU/2018 (A/O ITA NO.126/GAU/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13) DCIT, CIRCLE-AGARTALA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MANTRI BARI ROAD, NETAJI CHOWMUHANI, AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA. M/S BHIKSHU DEALER PVT. LTD. B.K. ROAD, BANAMALIPUR, TRIPURA WEST, AGARTALA-799001 VS. VS. BHIKSHU DEALER PVT. LTD. B.K. ROAD, BANAMALIPUR, AGARTALA, TRIPURA ACIT, CIRCLE, AGARTALA ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT/ / CO-OBJECTOR ) ./ PAN NO. AADCB0673N 2 ITAS NO. 110-112,114-115, 124,126-135,374/GAU/18 & COSNO.10-12,14,15,17-21/GAU/18 ITA NO.133-135/GAU/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2011-12 TO 2013-14 ITA NO.110-112/GAU/2018 C.O. NO.10 TO 12/GAU/2018 (A/O ITA NO.110-112/GAU/2018) ASSESSMENT YEAR(S):2011-12 TO 2013-14 SRI ABHIJIT PAUL, C/O SRI SWAPAN KUMAR PAUL, B.K. ROAD, BANAMALIPUR, TRIPURA WEST, AGARTALA-799001 DCIT, CIRCLE-AGARTALA AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MANTRA BARI ROAD, NETAJI CHOWMUHANI, AGARTALA, WET TRIPURA VS. VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-AGARTALA AGARTALA-799001 SHRI ABHIJIT PAUL B.K. ROAD, BANAMALIPUR, AGARTALA, TRIPURA-799001 ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT/ / CO-OBJECTOR ) ./ PAN NO. APDPP3896B ITA NO. 127/GAU/2018 C.O. NO.20/GAU/2018 (A/O ITA NO.127/GAU/2018) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12) DCIT, CIRCLE AGARTALA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MANTRI BARI ROAD, NETAJI CHOWMUHANI, AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA, VS. RAJ CONTINENTAL PVT. LTD. B.K. ROAD, BANAMALIPUR, AGARTALA, TRIPURA-799001 ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT/ / CO-OBJECTOR ) ./ PAN NO. AAFCR2943D ITA NO. 128/GAU/2018 C.O.21/GAU/2018 (A/O ITA NO.128/GAU/2018 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09) 3 ITAS NO. 110-112,114-115, 124,126-135,374/GAU/18 & COSNO.10-12,14,15,17-21/GAU/18 DCIT, CIRCLE-AGARTALA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MANTRI BARI ROAD, NETAJI CHOWMUHANI, AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA. VS. SUKHAMANI HOTELS PVT. LTD. B.K. ROAD, BANAMALIPUR, AGARTALA, TRIPURA ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT/ / CO-OBJECTOR ) ./ PAN NO. AAMCS5948N ITA NO. 131-132/GAU/2018 ITA NO.114-115/GAU/2018 C.O. NO.14-15/GAU/2018 (A/O ITA NO.114-115/GAU/2018) ( ASSESSMENT YEARS 2012-13 & 2013-14) SRI SUBHAJIT PAUL, C/O SRI SWAPAN KUMAR PAUL. B.K. ROAD, BANAMALIPUR, TRIPURA WEST, AGARTALA-799 001 DCIT, CIRCLE-AGARTALA AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MANTRI BARI ROAD, NETAJI CHOWMUHANI, AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA. VS. VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-AGARTALA AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MANTRI BARI ROAD, NETAJI CHOWMUHANI, AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA. SRI SUBHAJIT PAUL B.K. ROAD, BANAMALIPUR, AGARTALA, TRIPURA-799001 ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT/ / CO-OBJECTOR ) ./ PAN NO. AZNPP5539K /BY ASSESSEE SHRI SANJAY MODY, FCA /BY REVENUE SHRI A.K. BHARDWAJ, ADDL. CIT-DR SHRI SANDIP SENGUPTA, JCIT-DR SHRI RAVINDRA SINGH, JCIT-DR /DATE OF HEARING 11-07-2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 31-07-2019 / O R D E R PER BENCH, THIS INSTANT BATCH OF TWENTY FIVE CASES PERTAINS TO SIX ASSESSEES NAMELY OSCAR MOTORS PVT. LTD, BHIKSHU DEALER PVT. LTD., RA J CONTINENTAL PVT. LTD., 4 ITAS NO. 110-112,114-115, 124,126-135,374/GAU/18 & COSNO.10-12,14,15,17-21/GAU/18 SUKHAMANI HOTELS PVT. LTD., SUBHAJIT PAUL, ABHIJIT PAUL RESPECTIVELY. ALL THESE CROSS-APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AS MANY THE CONC ERNED TAXPAYER(S) AND THE CONCERNED ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION(S); AS THE CAS E MAY BE ARISE FROM THIS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) SHILLONG SEPARA TE ORDERS, FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS(S) RANGING BETWEEN 2008-09 TO 2013-14, INVOLV ING PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 153C READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. WE HAVE HEARD SHRI. SANJAY MODY, LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND SHRI A.K. BHARDWAJ, ADDL. CIT, SHRI SANDIP SENGUPTA & SHRI RAVINDRA SINGH, JCIT FOR THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES FO R THE DEPARTMENT. 2. IT TRANSPIRES DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT ALL THE CASES COMPRISED IN THE INSTANT LIS RAISE AN IDENTICAL ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF THE IMPUGN ED PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. THE ASSESS EES CASE BEFORE US IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT RECORDED VALID SATISFACTI ON(S) WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT AS APPLICABLE IN THE CASE O F A PERSON OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED TAXPAYER MR. BHARDWAJ STRONGLY ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOWHERE RAISED THESE PLEA OF VALIDITY OF SECTION 153C PROCE EDINGS EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR IN THE LOWER APPEAL AND THEREF ORE, THEY ARE BARRED FROM RAISING INSTANT PLEA BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. WE FIND NO SUBSTANCE IN REVENUES INSTANT ARGUMENT. HONBLE APEX COURT LANDMARK DECISION IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. VS. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) AS CONSIDERED THIS TRIBUNAL SPECIA L BENCH ORDER IN THE M/S ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LTD VS. DCIT (2012) 137 ITD 26 (MUM) SETTLE THE LAW THAT WE CAN VERY WELL ENTERTAIN SUCH A LEGAL QUESTI ON WHEN ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS FORMER PART OF RECORD IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE COR RECT TAX LIABILITY OF AN ASSESSEE. WE THEREFORE PROCEED TO EXAMINE VALIDITY OF THE IMP UGNED PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. 4. WE NOW ADVERT TO THE BASIS RELEVANT FACTS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAD CARRIED OUT THE SEARCH IN ISSUE DATE D 28.03.2013 IN CASE OF THE SEARCHED ASSESSEES. THE SAME APPEARS TO HAVE LED TO THE ALLEGED INCRIMINATING 5 ITAS NO. 110-112,114-115, 124,126-135,374/GAU/18 & COSNO.10-12,14,15,17-21/GAU/18 MATERIAL FOUND / SEIZED DURING BY THE AUTHORIZED OF FICER. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THE SAME IN CASE OF THE AB OVE THE SEARCHED ASSESSEE AS WELL AS OF ALL THE INSTANT TAX PAYERS. THE SAID ASS ESSING OFFICER RECORDED THE SEPARATE SATISFACTION(S) IN CASE OF THESE ASSESSEE( S). MR. BHARDWAJ HAS ACTED IN VERY VERY FAIR MANNER IN PRODUCING BEFORE US THE RE LEVANT IDENTICAL SATISFACTION NOTES AS UNDER: - ABHIJIT PAUL FOR AY 2011-12 SATISFACTION NOTE THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL IN STATUS AND DERIVES HIS INCOME FROM CARRIAGE CONTRACT AND TRADING OF AGRO PRODUCTS. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED ON 23-08- 2013 AT OFFICE PREMISES OF RAJARSHI MOTORS PVT LTD AND ALSO IN RESIDENCE OF SHRI SWAPAN KUMAR PAUL AND WARRANT EXECUTED ON SHRI SWAPAN PAUL AND RAJARSHI MOTORS PVT LTD. THE ASSESSEE IS A SON OF SHRI SWAPAN KUMAR PAUL AND ALSO A DIRECTOR OF RAJARSHI MOTORS PVT. LTD. DURING SEARCH OPERATION VARIOUS BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE WERE FOUND AND SEIZED PERTAINING TO THE SW APAN KUMAR PAUL GROUP OF COMPANIES WHERE SUBSTANTIAL INTER GROUP TRANSACTION S DETECTED. ALSO SHRI SWAPAN KUMAR PAUL MADE DISCLOSURES OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME I N THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY, NOTICE U/S. 153C WAS ISSUED TO THE AS SESSEE. 5. MR. BHARDWAJ VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED BEFORE US THAT IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAPPENS TO BE THE SAME IN THE CASE OF SEARC HED AS WELL AS ALL OTHER ASSESSEE(S) IT IS NOT REQUIRED TO RECORD THE SATISF ACTION NOTE IN THE CASE OF SEARCHED ASSESSEE THAT THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND / SE IZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH DOES NOT BELONG TO HIM FOLLOWED BY A SIMILAR EXERCI SE IN LATTERS CASE THAT IT IS THE SAID ASSESSEE TO WHOM THE MATERIAL IN QUESTION BELO NGS TO AS PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT THIS TRIBUNAL CO-ORDINATE BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF JOYRAM ENTERPRISE VS. ACIT IN ITA NO. 260 TO 266/GAU/2017 DECIDED ON 22.02.2018 HOLD AS UNDER: - 4. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE, AT THE OUTSET, SUBMITTED THAT HE WILL BE ARGUING GROUND NO3 OF THE APPEAL, WHICH IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE AS SESSING OFFICER INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S.153C OF THE ACT WHERE THE PROCEEDINGS WERE INIT IATED BY HIM WITHOUT RECORDING SATISFACTION WHICH IS A PRE-REQUISITE CONDITIONS FO R INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S,153C OF THE ACT AND WITHOUT WHICH THE AO DOES NOT DERIVE JU RISDICTION TO MAKE ASSESSMENT AND, THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY HIM U/S,153C OF THE ACT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND BAD IN LAW. 5. HE SUBMITTED THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 32 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF SHRI SUSHANTA SAHA ON 25.0 32015. SHRI SUSHANA SAHA IS A 6 ITAS NO. 110-112,114-115, 124,126-135,374/GAU/18 & COSNO.10-12,14,15,17-21/GAU/18 PARTNER IN THE ASSESSEE FIRM, FROM WHERE CERTAIN DO CUMENTS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED IN THE SEARCH OPERATION, THEREFORE, PROCEEDINGS U/S 530 OF THE ACT WAS INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SIX YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND CONSEQUENTLY AN ORDER CAME TO BE PASSED U/S.153C RW.S,143(3) OF THE ACT ON 26.122016 . THE PROCEEDINGS WAS STARTED U/S.153C OF THE ACT WITHOUT RECORDING SATISFACTION OF THE NATURE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 1530 OF THE ACT AND, THEREFORE, IS INVALID AND BAD IN LAW. FOR THIS, HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. SHETTYS PHARMACEUTICALS & BIOLOGICALS LTD. IN ITTA NO. 662 OF 2014 DATED 26-11-2014 AS WELL AS DECISION OF HYDERABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN T HE CASE OF SHRI SATYANARAYAN AGARWAL VS ASST, CIT, ITA NO.1764/HYD/2013, DATED 0 8.01.2016, WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S.153C OF THE ACT WITHO UT RECORDING SATISFACTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE OTHER PERSON AGAINST WHOM PROCEEDINGS U/S.153C OF THE ACT ARE TAKEN UP, THE PROCEEDING IS INVALID AND BAD IN LAW. 6. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHER HA ND, REFERRED TO THE SECTION 124(3)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT AND CONTENDED THAT NO PERSON SHALL BE ENTITLED TO CALL IN QUESTION THE JURISDICTION OF AN ASSESSING OFFICER I N A CASE WHERE AN ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN U/S,132 OR U/S.132A OF THE ACT AFTER THE EXPI RY OF ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE ON WHICH HE WAS SENSED WITH A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUB- SECTION (1) OF SECTION 153A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT OR SUBSECTION (2) OF SECTION 153C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT OR AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE OBJECTION WHICH IS NOW BEING RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDING ULS.153C OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW, SHOULD HAVE BEEN RAISED BY T HE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHIN ONE MONTH OF THE INITIATION OF PROCE EDINGS BY HIM AND AS THIS WAS NOT DONE, IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 124(3)(C ) OF THE ACT, THE SAME CANNOT BE RAISED NOW BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. IN THE REJOINDER, THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 124(3)(C) OF THE ACT WHICH PROVIDES THAT NO PERSON SHALL BE ENTITLED TO CALL IN QUESTION THE JURISDICTION OF AN ASSESSING OFFICER A FTER THE EXPIRY OF ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 153A OR SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 153C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT OR AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER, WAS' INSERTED W.E.F. 01.06.20 16, WHEREAS THE PROCEEDING IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE U/S.1 530 OF THE ACT WAS INITIATED ON 0 2,112015 AND, HENCE, THE PROVISIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER CONT ENDED THAT IN PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE JURISDICTION OF THE AO IS NOT CHA LLENGED PER SO BUT THE VALIDITY OF THE ACTION OF AO TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS U/S.163C OF TH E ACT WITHOUT RECORDING SATISFACTION WHICH IS A SINE QUA NON IS CHALLENGED AND, THEREFOR E, THE SAID PROVISIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. BRIEFLY THE FACTS RELATED TO ALL THE SIX YE ARS UNDER APPEAL I.E. ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-2010 TO 2014-2015 ARE THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZUR E OPERATION ULS.132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF SHRI SUSHANTA SAHA ON 25.0 3.2015. THE SAID SHRI SUSHANTA SAHA IS A PARTNER IN THE ASSESSEE FIRM AND DOCUMENT S RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE FIRM WERE ALSO FOUND AND SEIZED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERA TION. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S.153C OF THE ACT WAS INITIATED AGAIN ST THE ASSESSEE FOR ALL THE SIX YEARS 7 ITAS NO. 110-112,114-115, 124,126-135,374/GAU/18 & COSNO.10-12,14,15,17-21/GAU/18 UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ASSESSMENT U/S.153C R..W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED ON 26.12.2016. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE US THAT T HE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S.153C OF THE ACT IN THE INSTANT CASE IN ABSENCE OF RECORDING OF SATISFACTION OF THE NATURE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, IS INV ALID AND BAD IN LAW. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED PAPER BOOK BEFORE US WHEREIN COPY OF ORDER SH EET ENTRIES FOR ALL THE SIX YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE FILED AT PAGE NOS. 1 TO 14 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE FIRST RECORDING IN THE ORDER SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE IS MADE BY THE AO ON 02 .11.2015 I.E. THE VERY SAME DATE ON WHICH NOTICE U/S.153C OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED, THE RE CORDING MADE ON 0211.20151N THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 READS AS UNDER: - ORDER SHEET NAME OF THE ASSESSEE: JOY RAM ENTERPRISE PAN. AAGFJ6548 N ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 DATE: 02.112015 A SEARCH AND SEIZURE WAS CONDUCTED IN THE PREMISES OF JOY RAM ENTERPRISE ON 25-0201. APPRAISAL OF THE CASE HAS ALREADY BEEN REC EIVED FROM THE DDIT, GUWAHATI. IT IS A CONSEQUENTIAL CASE OF SUSHNTA SAH A. ACCORDINGLY A NOTICE U/S. 153A READ WITH SECTION 153C IS ISSUED TO THE ASSESS EE CALLING RETURN FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2009-10 BEING ONE OF THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS PRECEDING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANTTO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHI CH HE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED) IN THE PRESCRIBED FORMAT AND BE DULY VER IFIED IN PRESCRIBED MANNER AND TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE OFFICE OF THE UNDER SIGN ED BY 03.12.2015. 9. THE RECORDINGS MADE FOR ALL OTHER YEARS UNDER CO NSIDERATION ARE ALSO EXACTLY THE SAME, EXCEPT CHANGE OF ASSESSMENT YEARS. THUS, IT IS OBSERVED THAT NOWHERE IT STATES RECORDING OF ANY SATISFACTION IN THE CASE OF SEARCH ED PERSON WHICH HAVE BEEN PLACED IN THIS FILE OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY RECORD OF SATISFA CTION TO THE EFFECT THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED HAVE A BEARING ON THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS. 10. SECTION 153C OF THE ACT AS WAS IN FORCE AT THE MATERIAL TIME, READS AS UNDER: - 153C. (1) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SEC TION 139, SECTION 147, SECTION 148, SECTION 149, SECTION 151 AND SECT ION 153, WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT, (A) ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABL E ARTICLE OR THING, SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED, BELONGS TO; OR (B) ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS, SEIZED OR R EQUISITIONED, PERTAINS OR PERTAIN TO, OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINE D THEREIN, RELATES TO, A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTI ON 153A, THEN, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS, SEIZED OR REQUISITI ONED SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON AND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROCEED AGAINST EACH SUCH O THER PERSON AND ISSUE NOTICE AND ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME OF THE OTHER PERS ON IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A, IF, THAT ASSESSING OFFI CER IS SATISFIED THAT THE BOOKS 8 ITAS NO. 110-112,114-115, 124,126-135,374/GAU/18 & COSNO.10-12,14,15,17-21/GAU/18 OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISI TIONED HAVE A BEARING ON THE DETERMINATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF SUCH OTHER PER SON 2[FOR SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR REL EVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SEARCH IS CONDUCTED OR REQUISITION IS MADE AND] FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 153A. 11. WE FIND THAT THE HON'BLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF SHETTYS PHARMACEUTICALS & BIOLOGICAL LTD IN ITTA NO.662 OF 2014 DATED 26.11.2014, HAS CONSIDERED SIMILAR FACTS AND ANALYSED THE ABOVE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 1530 OF THE ACT AND UPHELD THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT INITIA TION OF PROCEEDINGS ULS.153C OF THE ACT WAS INVALID AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE ORDER PASSED U/S.153C WAS BAD IN LAW. THE HON'BLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT ON A READING OF S ECTION 1530 OF THE ACT, HAS HELD AS UNDER :- IT IS THEREFORE CLEAR THAT FIRSTLY SATISFACTION HA S TO BE RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO CONDUCTED SEARCH, THAT ANY MONEY, BULLI ON, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DO CUMENTS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED BELONGS OR BELONG TO A PERSON OTHER T HAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THIRD PARTY ON RECEIPT OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR DOCUMENT BEING HANDED OVER TO HIM SHALL RECORD HIS OWN SATISFACTION AFTER EXAMINING THE SAME INDEPENDENTLY WITHOUT BEING INFL UENCED BY THE SATISFACTION OF THE SEIZING OFFICER. IN OTHER WORDS IT IS NOT AN AUTOMATIC ACTION. WE FIND SATISFACTION OF TWO OFFICERS IS MISSING. IN THIS CO NNECTION WE SET OUT THE TEXT OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH IS AS FOLL OWS: A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S. 132 WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE GROUP CASE OF DR. T. YADHAIAH GOUD AND OTHERS ON 25.3.201 0. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO S HETTY PHARMACEUTICALS & BIOLOGICAL LTD., HAS BEEN SEIZED. HENCE IT IS CONSIDERED TO INITIATE PROCEEDING U/S. 153C O F THE I.T.ACT. THE AFORESAID SECTION MANDATES RECORDING OF SATISFA CTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER(S) IS A PRE-CONDITION FOR INVOKIN G JURISDICTION AND IT IS NOT A MERE FORMALITY BECAUSE RECORDING OF SATISFACT ION POSTULATES APPLICATION OF MIND CONSCIOUSLY AS THE DOCUMENTS SE IZED MUST BE BELONGING TO THE ANY OTHER PERSON OTHER THAN THE PE RSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 153-A OF THE ACT. IT IS CONTENDED THAT T HE SAME ASSESSING OFFICER IS INVOLVED IN THE MATTER. THIS FACT DOES N OT DISPENSE WITH ABOVE REQUIREMENT. IT IS SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT WHE N A THING IS TO BE DONE IN ONE PARTICULAR MANNER UNDER LAW THIS HAS TO BE D ONE IN THAT MANNER ALONE AND NOT OTHER WAY (SEE NAZIR AHMED V. KING EM PEROR). WE THINK THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL HAS CORRECTLY FOLLOWED THE PRI NCIPLE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY ELEMENT OF LAW TO BE DECIDED. 12. THE ABOVE DECISION OF HON'BLE ANDHRA PRADESH HI GH COURT WAS FOLLOWED BY THE HYDERABAD TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SRI SATYANARAYARI AGARWAT VS. ASST. CITY ITA NO.1764/HYD/2013, DATED 08.01.2016. TO THE SAME EFF ET IS ALSO THE DECISION OF DELHI 9 ITAS NO. 110-112,114-115, 124,126-135,374/GAU/18 & COSNO.10-12,14,15,17-21/GAU/18 BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF TANVIR COLLECT IONS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT IN ITA NO2421/DEL/2014DER DATED 16.01.2015. THE CBDT ALSO VIDE ITS CIRCULAR NO.24/2015, D31,12.2015 HAS ACCEPTED THE DECISION OF HONBLE SU PREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CALCUTTA KNITWEARS, [2014] 362 ITR 673 (SC), WHEREI N IT WAS HELD THAT RECORDING OF A SATISFACTION IS SINE QUA NON FOR TAKING AN ACTION A GAINST A PERSO1 586D OF THE ACT I.E. A PERSON IN WHOSE CASE SEARCH WAS NOT CONDUCTED AND A LSO ACCEPTED THAT THIS DECISION IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE IN CASE COVERED BY SECTION 153C OF THE ACT AND ALSO FURTHER DIRECTED THAT IN PENDING LITIGATION WITH REGARD TO RECORDING OF SATISFACTION NOTE U/S.158BD/1530 SHOULD HE WITHDRAWN/NOT PRESSED, IF IT DOES NOT MEET THE GUIDELINES LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE S, IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE FIND THAT BOTH TH TWO SATISFACTIONS WHICH WERE REQUIRED TO BE RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1530, ONE IN CAPACITY AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AND THE OTHER IN THE CAPACITY OF THE AO OF T HE ASSESSEE (OTHER PERSON), BOTH ARE MISSING- HENCE, WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN HOLDING TH AT THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S.153C OF THE ACT, IN THE INSTANT CASE, IS BAD IN 'LAW AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AO UIS.153C R.W.S.143(3) FOR ALL THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE LIABLE TO BE. CANCELLED. 13. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS REFERRE D TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14(3)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, WHICH, PROVIDES THA T NO PERSON SHALL BE ENTITLED TO CALL IN QUESTION THE JURISDICTION OF AN ASSESSING OFFICER A FTER EXPIRY OF ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 1530 OF THE INCO ME-TAX ACT OR AFTER THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER, TO CONTEND THAT T HE CHALLENGE TO THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 530 OF THE ACT, NOW AT THIS STAGE, IS NOT VALID. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS CONTENTION OF THE ID. DR. FIRSTLY, THIS SEC TION 124(3)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, WAS INSERTED IN THE STATUE W.E.F. 01.06.2016, WHEREAS I N THE INSTANT CASE, THE PROCEEDINGS U/S,153C WAS INITIATED ON 02.11.2O15 MOREOVER, IN T HE INSTANT APPEALS, THE JURISDICTION OF THE AO IS NOT CHALLENGED PER SE BUT THE VALIDITY OF THE ACTION OF AO TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS U/S 530 OF THE ACT WITHOUT RECORDING SA TISFACTION WHICH IS A SINE QUA NON, IS CHALLENGED. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ACIT, CIRCLE-AGARTALA HAD NO JURISDICTION TO MAKE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE ISSUE INVOLVED BEING A LEGAL ISSUE, THE SAME CAN BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS A SETTLED PORTION OF LAW IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF H ON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. VS. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT NOTHING PREVENTED THE TRIBUNAL TO CONSIDE R THE QUESTIONS OF LAW ARISING IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED EARLIER . WE, THEREFORE, HEREBY CANCEL THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES FOR ALL THE SIX ASSESSM ENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ALLOW THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 14. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE DECISION, THE ISSUE RAISED IN OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE NOT ADJUDICATED. 6. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN [2014] 222 TAXMAN 96 (GUJ) DCIT VS. LALITKUMAR M PATEL HAS ALSO DECID ED THE SIMILAR CASE OF THE 10 ITAS NO. 110-112,114-115, 124,126-135,374/GAU/18 & COSNO.10-12,14,15,17-21/GAU/18 SAME ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE CASE OF SEARCHED AS W ELL AS THE THIRD PERSON(S) INVOLVING THE ERSTWHILE158BC AND 158BD PROCEEDINGS. THEIR LORDSHIPS AFFIRMED THIS TRIBUNAL CO-ORDINATE BENCH DECISION THAT EVEN IF TWO CATEGORIES OF ASSESSEES HAPPEN TO BE ASSESSED BY THE SAME ASSESSING OFFICER , THE TWIN ROUND OF SATISFACTION IS A MANDATORY CONDITION PRIOR TO TAKI NG RECOURSE TO SECTION 158BD PROCESS. WE WISH TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE CBDTS C IRCULAR NO. 24 OF 2015 HAS ITSELF CLARIFIED THAT THE RELEVANT PROCEEDINGS IN T HE ERSTWHILE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROVISIONS I.E. SECTION 158BC AND 158BD ARE PARA MATERIA TO THE UNDER SECTION 153A AND 153C OF THE ACT (SUPRA). 7. MR. BHARDWAJ, AT THIS STAGE QUOTES THE HONBLE KOLK ATA HIGH COURT DECISION AFFIRMING TRIBUNALS ORDER IN ITA NOS. 1832-1834/KO L/2014 M/S KPC MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL V/S DCIT 24.06.2018 THAT A COMMO N SATISFACTION BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER BOTH CAT EGORIES IF THE SEARCHED AS WELL THIRD PARTY ASSESSEE IS DUE COMPLIANCE U/S 153C OF THE ACT. 8. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO RIVAL CONTENTIONS. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THE BASIC FACT S RELATING TO THE INSTANT ISSUE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER; WHO HAPPENS TO THE SAME FOR THE SEARCHED AS WELL AS THE INSTANT ASSESSEES, HAD NOT RECORDED ANY SEPARATE SA TISFACTION IN FORMERS CASE THAT THE RELEVANT INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND / SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH DID NOT BELONGING TO HIM BUT TO ALL THESE TAX PAYERS BE FORE US. FACED WITH THIS LEGAL POSITION AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY GUIDANCE OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, WE QUOTE HONBLE APEX COURT DECISION IN CIT V. VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD .(1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC) AND ADOPT THE VIEW FAVOURING THE ASSES SEES. THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER(S) U NDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT INVOLVING SIX ASSESSEES ARE QUASHED. ALL OTHER ISS UES ON MERITS ARE RENDERED INFRACTUOUS THEREFORE. 9. THE REVENUES NINE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED WHEREAS AS SESSEES APPEAL(S) AS MANY NINE CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE ALLOWED IN FOREGOING TERMS. 11 ITAS NO. 110-112,114-115, 124,126-135,374/GAU/18 & COSNO.10-12,14,15,17-21/GAU/18 10. TO SUM UP, REVENUES APPEALS ARE DISMISSED AND ASSE SSEES APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTION(S) ARE ALLOWED IN ABOVE TERMS. [ A COPY OF THE INSTANT COMMON ORDER BE PLACED IN THE RESPECTIVE CASE FILE(S) ] ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31-07-2019. SD/- SD/- ( . . / DR. A.L. SAINI) ( . . / S.S. GODARA) ( / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ( %& / JUDICIAL MEMBER) , / GUWAHATI, DATED: -07-2019 , . / SUDIP SARKAR, SR.PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. /ASSESSEE-OSCAR MOTORS PVT. LTD. CHINAIHONI, NATUN NAGAR, AGARTALA, TRIPURA,/ BHIKSHU DEALER PVT. LTD. B.K. ROAD, BANAMALIPUR AGARTALA, TRIPURA/ SHRI ABHIJIT P AUL, C/O SRI SWAPAN KR. PAUL, B.K. ROAD, BANAMALIPUR, AGARTA LA- 799001/RAJ CONTINENTAL PVT. LTD. B.K. ROAD, BANAMAL IPUR, AGARTALA-799001/SUKHAMANI HOTELS PVT LTD,. B.K.ROAD , BANAMALIPUR, AGARTALA 2. / THE REVENUE-ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-AGARTALA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MANTRI BARI ROAD, NETAJI CHOWMUHANI, AGARTA LA 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT 5. ' &&* , * , / DR, ITAT, GUWAHATI 6. ' / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, % ' //TRUE COPY// /TRUE COPY/ . / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY (ON TOUR) , / ITAT, GUWAHATI