Smt. Vanita Vaswani, Ahmedabad V. The Pr. CIT (Central), Ahmedabad

ITA 133/AHD/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5845 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 27-05-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIRENDRA OJHA
• Assessee Lawyers: VIJAY GOVANI
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Revision of order; Search and seizure; Document seized; Opportunity of being heard; Fair market value; Assessment record; Tax effect; Documents seized; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 142(1); 153A; 201; 43; 48; 13; 153; 153C; 263; 132; 15

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD (THROUGH WEB-BASED VIDEO CONFERENCING PLATFORM) ] ] BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.133/AHD/2021 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2010-11 SMT. VANITA VASWANI, 2, SAMPRAT CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED, OPP. RIVERA, 11, PRAHLADNAGAR, AHMEDABAD - 380015 PAN : AAKPV 7868 D VS THE PCIT (CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI TUSHAR HEMANI, SR. ADVOCATE SHRI PARIMALSINH B PARMAR, AR & SHRI VIJAY GOVANI, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI VIRENDRA OJHA, CIT-DR / DATE OF HEARING : 28/07/2021 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17/09/2021 / O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT : THE PRESENT APPEAL IS DIRECTED AT THE INSTANCE OF T HE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD DATED 28.03.2021, PASSED UNDER SECTION 26 3 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT), FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN 7 GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH READ AS UNDER:- 1. THE LD. PCIT (CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD ('THE PCIT') HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN INVOKING JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE ACT') AND HAS FURTHER ERRED IN DIRECTING THE LD. AO TO PASS FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER INCORPORATING THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS PER SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. 2. THE LD. PCIT HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN P ASSING ORDER U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT I N FAILING TO TAKE ITA NO. 133/AHD/2011 SMT. VANITA VASWANI VS. PR. CIT AY : 2010-2011 2 COGNIZANCE OF THE REPLIES FILED DATED 03/03/2020 & 19/03/2020 AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING & DEALING WITH THE OBJECTIONS RAISED IN THE AFORESAID REPLIES. 3. THE LD. PCIT HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN P ASSING ORDER U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IGNORING THE FACT SPECIFICALLY BROUGHT TO HIS ATTENTION THAT THE ASSESSMENT SOUGHT TO BE REVIEWED BY HIM WA S ALREADY QUASHED BY THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD. 4. THE LD. PCIT HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN P ASSING ORDER U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DIRECTING THE AO TO ADOPT SALE VALUE AS PER SECTION 50C OF ACT IGNORING THE SETTLED LAW THAT ADDITIONS IN AN UNABATED ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT CAN BE M ADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 5. THE LD. PCIT HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN P ASSING ORDER U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTUA L POSITION THAT LAND UNDER CONSIDERATION IS OF A FARMHOUSE FALLING UNDER AGRICULTURE ZONE AND THE STAMP DUTY WAS CHARGED ADOPTING THE CIRCLE RATE OF NON-AGRICULTURE LAND ON SALE OF FARMHOUSE AND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD OBJECT ED TO THE VALUATION BUT AGREED FOR SALE BECAUSE THE STAMP DUTY WAS TO BE BO RNE BY THE BUYER. 6. THE LD. PCIT HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN P ASSING ORDER U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE FARMHOUSE LAND WAS SOLD AT FAIR MARKET VALUE WHICH IS MUCH HIGHER THAN THE CIRCLE RATE OF AGRICULTURE LAND. 7. THE LD. PCIT HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN P ASSING ORDER U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT W ITHOUT EVEN CONSIDERING VARIOUS CASE LAWS SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT 'S CONTENTIONS WITH REGARD TO VALIDITY OF JURISDICTION U/S 153C OF THE ACT, SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT U/S 153C OF THE ACT & NON MAINTAINABILITY OF ACTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT WITH RESPECT TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPEL LANTS CASE. 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE VER Y OUTSET, SUBMITTED IN BRIEF THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CHALLENGING THE AC TION TAKEN BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. AT THE OUTSET, HE SUBMITTED THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE PREMISES OF VENUS GROUP ON 10.03.2015 AND, IN CONNECTION WITH THE SEA RCH AND SURVEY PROCEEDINGS, A NOTICE U/S. 153C OF THE ACT WAS ISSU ED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 14.07.2016. ASSESSMENT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY COMPLETED U/S 143(3) R.WS. 153C ITA NO. 133/AHD/2011 SMT. VANITA VASWANI VS. PR. CIT AY : 2010-2011 3 R.WS. 153A(1)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ON 26.12.201 7. THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND ULTIMATELY THE ISSUE TRAVELLED UP TO THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 12.11.2020 HAS QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT O RDER ON THE GROUND THAT THE ORDER WAS NOT PASSED WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD PRO VIDED IN THE ACT. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF HAS BEEN QUASHED, THERE CAN NOT BE ANY SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE EVEN UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THIS ASPECT WAS BROUGHT TO T HE NOTICE OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER WHO TOOK COGNIZANCE OF THIS FACT; BUT, INSTEAD OF DROPPING THE PROCEEDINGS, PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY KEEPI NG IN MIND THE DEPARTMENT WANTS TO KEEP THE ISSUE ALIVE. HE PLACE D ON RECORD COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASS ESSEE ON QUANTUM. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE RELIED UPON THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED C OMMISSIONER HAS RIGHTLY TAKEN COGNIZANCE UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE A CT AND HAS RIGHTLY DECIDED THE ISSUE. 4. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AN D GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER HAS IN ITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT ON 11.02.2020. THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY HIM READS AS UNDER:- SUBJECT: NOTICE U/S. 263 OF THE I.T. ACT IN YOUR C ASE FOR A.Y. 2010-11 - GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD - REGARDING PLEASE REFER TO THE SUBJECT MENTIONED ABOVE. 2. IT IS NOTICED THAT IN YOUR CASE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.. 143(3) R.W.S. 153C R.W.S. 153A(1)(B) OF THE ACT WAS PASSED ON 26/12/20 17 WHEREIN INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS.2.04,61,980/-. ITA NO. 133/AHD/2011 SMT. VANITA VASWANI VS. PR. CIT AY : 2010-2011 4 3. ON PERUSAL OF THE CASE RECORDS, IT IS NOTICED TH AT YOU HAD SOLD LAND AT SARGASHAN, VIDE SALE DEED NO.10480 DATED 24.09.2009 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.52,05,200/- AND OFFERED SHORT TERM CAPITA! GAIN AMOUNTING TO RS.42,51,445/- ON THE SAME. FURTHER, IT IS NOTICED FROM COPY OF SALE DEED THAT STAMP DUTY OF RS.6,55,900/- WAS LEVIED THEREON. AS STAMP DUTY IN GUJARAT IS LEVIED @4.9%, THE VALUE OF PROPERTY AS PER ITS DETA ILS COMES TO RS.1,33,85,714/-. FURTHER, AS PER THE REPORT OF SRO GANDHINAGAR STAMP DUTY VALUE OF THE PROPERTY SOLD BY YOU WAS RS.1,33,84,80 0/-. THEREFORE, STAMP DUTY VALUE IS REQUIRED TO BE TAKEN AS VALUE OF PROP ERTY U/S 50C FOR COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN. WHILE FINALIZING THE A SSESSMENT ORDER THE AO HAD NOT CONSIDERED THE VALUE OF PROPERTY AS PER PRO VISION OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT FOR COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.1 43(3) R.W.S 153C OF THE ACT DATED 28/12/2017 PASSED BY THE AO IS PRIMA FACIE BO TH ERRONEOUS AS ALSO PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND THER EFORE, I INTEND TO REVISE THE SAID ORDER U/S.263 OF THE I.T. ACT. 5. VIDE THIS LETTER, YOU ARE, THEREFORE, GIVEN AN O PPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN THIS REGARD. YOU ARE REQUESTED TO ATTEND MY OFFICE IN PERSON OR THROUGH YOUR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ALONG WITH YOUR SUBMISSIO NS, IF ANY, IN THIS REGARD. THE HEARING FOR THIS PURPOSE IS FIXED ON 24 /02/2020 AT 4.00 PM AT THE ABOVE MENTIONED ADDRESS. ..' 5. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER, THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT TO HIS NOTICE THAT THESE PROCEEDIN GS HAS NO LEGS TO STAND BECAUSE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT CA N ONLY BE INITIATED IF SAME VALIDITY PROCEEDINGS ARE PENDING BEFORE THE AS SESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH HAS BEEN BASED BY THE LEARN ED COMMISSIONER TO CONSTRUE THE ERROR CREPT IN THE PROCEEDINGS WHICH H AS CAUSED PREJUDICE TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, HAS ALREADY BEEN QUASH ED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 12.11.2020. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER T OOK COGNIZANCE OF THIS FACT AND RECORDED THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:- 5. I HAVE CAREFULLY AND THOROUGHLY GONE THROUGH TH E SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE STATED IN ITS REPLY ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE AS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. AS PER SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, WHERE THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A ITA NO. 133/AHD/2011 SMT. VANITA VASWANI VS. PR. CIT AY : 2010-2011 5 RESULT OF THE TRANSFER BY AN ASSESSEE OF A CAPITAL ASSET, BEING LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH, IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY ANY AUTHORITY OF A STATE GOVERNMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER, THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED SHALL FO R THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 48 OF THE ACT BE DEEMED TO BE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSID ERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF SUCH TRANSFER. 5.1 THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE THE I TAT HAS QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THEREFORE THE PROPOSED NOTICE AND ASSESSMENT U/S 263 OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW IS NOT CORRECT. THE BASIC FEATURE S OF SEC. 263 ARE THAT THE PR. COMMISSIONER MAY REVISE ANY ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PRO VIDED IT. IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS, OF THE REVENUE, T HAT THE REVISION ORDER CAN BE PASSED WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCI AL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED WAS PASSED AND THE ASSESSEE MU ST BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BEFORE ANY PROCEEDINGS U NDER THE SECTION ARE TAKEN. THE PRE-CONDITIONS FOR ASSESSMENT UNDER SECT ION 263 HAVE BEEN SATISFIED. MOREOVER, THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT ACCEPTE D THE ORDER OF THE ITAT AND CONTEMPLATING TO FILE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITAT IN THIS REGARD. THE ORDER UNDER REVISION IS CH ALLENGED ON ACCOUNT OF VALIDITY OF ORDER U/S 153C, WHEREAS THIS ORDER IS F OR NON-APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C ON SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROP ERTY. THEREFORE ISSUES ARE DIFFERENT. EVEN THOUGH THESE ISSUES ARE INTERLINKED , BUT TO KEEP THE ISSUE ALIVE AND IN THE INTEREST OF REVENUE, THIS PROCEEDINGS AR E COMPLETED. FURTHER, HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF MAHALAXMI SUGAR M ILLS, 160 ITR 920(SC) HAS HELD THAT THERE IS A DUTY CAST ON THE I .T.O. TO DETERMINE THE TRUE FIGURES OF ASSESSEE'S TAXABLE INCOME AND THE CONSEQ UENTIAL TAX EFFECT. HERE IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT THIS ORDER U/S 153C IS MERGED WITH THE EARLIER ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, WHERE ALSO NO SUCH INC OME WAS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE NOR SUBJECTED TO TAX AS THIS ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HENCE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. 5.2 ON VERIFICATION OF ASSESSMENT RECORD IT IS SEEN THAT ASSESSEE HAD SOLD LAND AND OFFERED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AMOUNTING TO RS . 42,51,445/- ON THE SAME. FURTHER, IT IS SEEN FROM THE COPY OF SALE DEE D THAT STAMP DUTY OF RS.6,55,900/- WAS LEVIED THROUGH FRANKING OF NUTAN NAGRIK SAHKARI BANK ON 24.09.2009. THE STAMP DUTY IN GUJARAT IS LEVIED AT THE RATE OF 4.9%, ACCORDINGLY THE VALUE OF PROPERTY WAS DETERMINED AT RS.1,33,85,714/-. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS RS.1,33,85,714/- O UGHT TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN AS SALE CONSIDERATION UNDER SECTION 50 C OF THE ACT FOR COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. LATER ON MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPE RTY WAS SOUGHT FROM SRO GANDHINAGAR AND AS PER THE REPORT OF THE SRO THE VA LUE OF PROPERTY WAS CALCULATED AT RS.1,33,84,800/-. THEREFORE, THE ORDE R U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153C ITA NO. 133/AHD/2011 SMT. VANITA VASWANI VS. PR. CIT AY : 2010-2011 6 R.W.S. 153A(1)(B) OF THE ACT DATED 26/12/2017 PASSE D BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 6. IN THE LIGHT OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES NARRATED ABOVE, I HOLD THAT THE AO HAS ERRED IN MAKING A PROPER ASSESSMENT IN THIS CAS E. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS, THEREFORE, ERRONEOUS IN AS MUCH AS IT IS PREJUD ICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. HENCE, IN EXERCISE OF POWER CONFERRED IN M E U/S.263 OF THE ACT, I SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S . 153C R.W.S. 153A(1)(B) OF THE ACT N 26/12/2017 FOR THE A.Y.2010-11 WITH TH E DIRECTION TO THE AO TO PASS A FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LA W AND FACTS OF THE CASE AFTER INCORPORATING THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERT Y AS PER SEC. 50C OF THE ACT AND AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUN ITY OF BEING HEARD. WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THIS ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD ALSO CONSIDER THE LAST INCOME DETERMINED. 6. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIV ES, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. A PERUSAL OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT WOULD REVEAL THAT IT CONTEMPLATES THAT THE PRINCIPAL COMM ISSIONER OR LEARNED COMMISSIONER MAY CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE RECORD OF ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT, AND IF HE CONSIDERS THAT ANY ORDER PASSED THEREIN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS INSOFAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL T O THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, HE MAY, AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND AFTER CONDUCTING AN INQUIRY AS HE DEEMS NECESSARY, PASS S UCH ORDER THEREON AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE JUSTIFY, INCLUDING AN ORDER ENHANCING OR MODIFYING THE ASSESSMENT, OR CANCELLING THE ASSESSM ENT AND DIRECTING A FRESH ASSESSMENT. IT IS PERTINENT TO OBSERVE THAT FOR INSTITUTING A VALID PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, THERE SHOU LD BE A VALID LEGAL PROCEEDING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ONCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS QUASHED ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS PASSED AFTER LIMI TATION PROVIDED IN THE ACT FOR PASSING SUCH ORDER, THEN IT IS TO BE CONSTR UED THAT NO ASSESSMENT ORDER IS AVAILABLE ON WHICH LEARNED COMMISSIONER CO ULD FORM AN OPINION AS TO WHETHER ANY ERROR IS AVAILABLE IN SUCH ORDER OR NOT. SECTION 263 OF THE ACT SPECIFICALLY CONTEMPLATES THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN E RROR EITHER IN THE ITA NO. 133/AHD/2011 SMT. VANITA VASWANI VS. PR. CIT AY : 2010-2011 7 PROCEEDINGS OR IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH HAS CA USED PREJUDICE TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. NOW, IN THE PRESENT APPE AL, AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF HAS ALREADY BEEN QUASHED BY THE TRIBUN AL VIDE ORDER DATED 12.11.2020, NO SUBSEQUENT FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CAN B E INITIATED. FOR THE COMPLETENESS OF THE FACTS, WE TAKE NOTE OF THE OPER ATING PART OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 124 TO 129/AHD/2019 FOR ASS ESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 TO 2014-15, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL, AFTER AN ELABORAT E DISCUSSION, HAS QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS. THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE O RDER READS AS UNDER:- 14. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. BEFORE WE EMBARK UPON AN INQUIRY, WHETH ER THE MATERIAL FOUND AT THE PREMISES OF THE SEARCHED PERSON, WOULD INDICATE THA T THESE DOCUMENTS FALLS IN THE CATEGORY OF DOCUMENTS, WHICH COULD BE TERMED AS DOC UMENT BELONG TO OR BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE OR ENTRY EMBEDDED IN THEM FALLS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF EXPRESSION PERTAINS TO OR RELATES TO. WE HAVE TO DETERMIN E UNDER WHICH CLAUSE ONE HAS TO CONSTRUE THE DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF S EARCH. THEREFORE, IT IS IMPERATIVE UPON US TO TAKE NOTE OF SECTION 153C, WH ICH READS AS UNDER: 2.2.2 UPTO 01.06.2015: ASSESSMENT OF INCOME OF ANY OTHER PERSON. - 153C. -[(1)] NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SECTION 139, SECTION 147, SECTION 148, SECTION 149, SECTION 151 AND SECTION 153, WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWEL LERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 153A, THEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR 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 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 OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT THE B OOKS 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 FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 153A]:] 2.2.3 WITH EFFECT FROM 01.06.2015: ASSESSMENT OF INCOME OF ANY OTHER PERSON. - 153C. -[(1)] [NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SECTION 139. SECTION 147, SECTION 148, SECTION 149, SECTION 151 AND SECTION 153, WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT, ITA NO. 133/AHD/2011 SMT. VANITA VASWANI VS. PR. CIT AY : 2010-2011 8 (A) ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VAL UABLE ARTICLE OR THING, SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED, ~ BELONGS TO; OR (B) ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS, SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED, OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED THEREIN, 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 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 FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 153A] :] 15. A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE PROVISIONS WOULD REVEAL THAT IN THE CASE OF SEARCH ACTION, CARRIED OUT UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, PRIOR TO 1.6.2015, IF ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ART ICLE OR THING, OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR DOCUMENTS, SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED BEL ONGS OR BELONG TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO SECTION 153A, THE N THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON WHILE PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 153A O R PRIOR TO THAT, RECORD HIS SATISFACTION ABOUT THOSE DOCUMENTS, AND IF THOSE DO CUMENTS DISCLOSED UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE PERSON OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSON . HE WILL TRANSMIT THOSE DOCUMENTS ALONG WITH HIS SATISFACTION NOTE TO THE A O HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THAT OTHER PERSON. JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 153C OF T HE ACT PRIOR TO 1.6.2015 COULD BE INVOKED ONLY IF THE MATERIAL SEIZED DURING THE COUR SE OF SEARCH IN THE CASE OF THIRD- PERSON BELONGS TO TO SOME PERSONS OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSON. HOWEVER, AFTER 1.6.2015, THE LEGISLATURE HAS CATEGORIZED TWO SITUATIONS. AS FAR AS RECOVERY OF ANY MONEY, BULLION JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTI CLE OR THING SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED BELONGS TO PERSON OTHER THAN THE SEAR CHED PERSON, THEN SECTION 153C WOULD BE JUSTIFIED. HOWEVER, WITH REGARD TO THE RE COVERY OF ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR DOCUMENTS, SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED, THEN IF THEY PERTAIN TO OTHER PERSON, OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED THEREIN RELATES TO PERSON OTH ER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSON, THEN THE ACTION UNDER SECTION 153C COULD BE THERE. THE SCOPE OF SECTION 153C AFTER 1.6.2015 HAS BEEN WIDENED; VIZ. IF A PERSON AT WHOS E PREMISES SEARCH WAS CARRIED OUT MAINTAINING CERTAIN DETAILS IN HIS REGULAR DAY- TO-DAY BUSINESS, AND THAT CONTAIN CERTAIN INFORMATION EXHIBITING THE UNDISCLOSED INCO ME OF THE PERSON OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSON, THEN THE ACTION UNDER SECTION 153C COULD BE JUSTIFIED. BUT PRIOR TO 1.6.2015, THE DOCUMENTS OUGHT TO BE BELONGED TO PER SON OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSON. THERE IS A CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN BOTH THE CONDITIONS. SUBSEQUENT TO 1.6.2015, THE INFORMATION EMBEDDED IN THE DOCUMENT IS SUFFICIENT FOR TAKING ACTION UNDER SECTION 153C, BUT PRIOR TO 1.6.2015 ACTION UN DER SECTION 153C COULD BE TAKEN IF DOCUMENTS BELONG TO THE PERSON OTHER THAN THE SE ARCHED PERSON WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 16. HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN ITS DECISION REND ERED IN THE CASE OF ANILK KUMAR GOPIKISHNA AGRAWAL VS. ACIT (SUPRA) CONSIDERE D AN ISSUE, WHETHER POST- ITA NO. 133/AHD/2011 SMT. VANITA VASWANI VS. PR. CIT AY : 2010-2011 9 AMENDED SECTION COULD BE APPLICABLE ON THE PENDING ASSESSMENTS, MEANING THEREBY, IF SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED PRIOR TO 1.6.2015, BUT ASSE SSMENTS WERE NOT CONCLUDED, WHETHER POST-AMENDED SECTION IS TO BE APPLIED IN SU CH CASES OR NOT; BECAUSE THAT WOULD CHANGE THE VERY NATURE OF THE DISPUTES. 17. HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS FORMULATED THE F OLLOWING QUESTION WHETHER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT AS AMENDED W.E.F. 1.6.2015 WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO CASES WHERE SEARCH INITIATED PRIOR TO THAT DATE ? AFTER AN ELABORATE DISCUSSION, HONBLE COURT ARRIVE D AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THIS SECTION WOULD BE APPLICABLE PROSPECTIVELY ONLY ON THE SEARCH CONDUCTED AFTER 1.6.2015. WE WOULD LIKE TO TAKE NOTE OF THE RELEVA NT DISCUSSION MADE IN THE JUDGMENT, WHICH READS AS UNDER: 19.8 WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT SECTION 153C OF THE ACT IS ALSO A MACHINERY PROVISION FOR ASSESSMENT OF INCOME OF A PERSON OTHE R THAN THE PERSON SEARCHED, IN THE OPINION OF THIS COURT, THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE BY VIRTUE OF THE AMENDMENT, THERE IS MERELY A CHANGE IN THE PROC EDURAL PROVISIONS AFFECTING THE ASSESSEES WHO WERE COVERED BY THE UNA MENDED PROVISION. BY THE AMENDMENT, A NEW CLASS OF ASSESSEES ARE SOUGHT TO BE BROUGHT WITHIN THE SWEEP OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, WHICH AFFECTS THE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS OF THE ASSESSEES AND CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A MERE CHANGE IN THE PROCEDURE. SINCE THE AMENDMENT EXPANDS THE SCOPE OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT BY BRINGING IN AN ASSESSEE IF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS PERTAININ G TO HIM OR CONTAINING INFORMATION RELATING TO HIM HAVE BEEN SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, WITHIN THE FOLD OF THAT SECTION, THIS QUESTION ASSU MES SIGNIFICANCE, INASMUCH AS IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH, IT WAS ONLY IF SUCH MATERIAL BELONGED TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE SEARCH ED PERSON, THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON COULD RECO RD SUCH SATISFACTION AND FORWARD THE MATERIAL TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF SU CH OTHER PERSON. HOWEVER, SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE OF SEARCH, THE AMEN DMENT HAS BEEN BROUGHT INTO FORCE AND BASED ON THE AMENDMENT, THE PETITION ERS WHO WERE NOT INCLUDED WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 153C OF THE AC T AS ON THE DATE OF THE SEARCH, ARE NOW SOUGHT TO BE BROUGHT WITHIN ITS FOL D ON THE GROUND THAT THE SATISFACTION NOTE AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN ISSUED AFTER THE AMENDMENT CAME INTO FORCE. THEREFORE, THI S CASE DOES NOT RELATE TO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF ANY OF THE SECTIONS, BUT RELATES TO THE STAGE AT WHICH THE AMENDED SECTION 153C OF THE ACT CAN BE MADE APPLICABLE, AS TO WHETHER IT RELATES TO THE DATE OF SEARCH; OR THE DATE OF RECORDING OF SATISFACTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCH ED PERSON; OR THE DATE OF RECORDING OF SATISFACTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE OTHER PERSON; OR THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C OF TH E ACT. 19.9 IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE SEARCH W AS CONDUCTED IN ALL THE CASES ON A DATE PRIOR TO 1ST JUNE, 2015. THEREFORE, ON THE DATE OF THE SEARCH, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE PERSON SEARCHED COULD ONLY HAVE RECORDED SATISFACTION TO THE EFFECT THAT THE SEIZED MATERIAL BELONGS OR BELONG TO THE ITA NO. 133/AHD/2011 SMT. VANITA VASWANI VS. PR. CIT AY : 2010-2011 10 OTHER PERSON. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE HARD-DISC CO NTAINING IN THE INFORMATION RELATING TO THE PETITIONERS ADMITTEDLY DID NOT BELONG TO THEM, THEREFORE, AS ON THE DATE OF THE SEARCH, THE ESSENT IAL JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT TO JUSTIFY ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U NDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT IN CASE OF THE PETITIONERS, DID NOT EXIST. IT W AS ONLY ON 1ST JUNE, 2015 WHEN THE AMENDED PROVISIONS CAME INTO FORCE THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON COULD HAVE FORMED THE REQUISITE BELIEF THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED PERTAI N TO OR THE INFORMATION CONTAINED THEREIN RELATES TO THE PETITIONERS. 19.10 IN THIS BACKDROP, TO TEST THE STAGE OF APPLIC ABILITY OF THE AMENDED PROVISIONS, A HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE MAY BE TAKEN. TH E SEARCH IS CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF HN SAFAL GROUP ON 4.9.2013. IF THE A SSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON HAD RECORDED SATISFACTION THAT SOME OF THE SEIZED/REQUISITIONED MATERIAL BELONGS TO A PERSON O THER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSON AND FORWARDED THE MATERIAL TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE OTHER PERSON, HAD ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT PRIOR TO THE COMING INTO FORCE OF THE AMENDED PROVISION. THE NOTICE UND ER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE APPROPRIATE FORUM ON THE GROUND THAT THE SEIZED MATERIAL DOES NOT BELONG TO SUCH OTHER PERSO N AND SUCH ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF SUCH PERSON ON A FINDING THAT THE SEIZED MATERIAL DOES NOT BELONG TO THE OTHER PERSON. THEREAFTER, IN VIEW OF THE AMENDMENT IN SECTION 153C (1) OF THE ACT, SINCE THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNT OR DOCUMENTS DID NOT BELONG TO THE OTHER PERSON BUT DID PERTAIN TO HIM O R THE INFORMATION CONTAINED THEREIN RELATED TO HIM, CAN THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON ONCE AGAIN RECORD SATISFACTION AS CONTEMPLAT ED UNDER THE AMENDED PROVISION AND FORWARD THE MATERIAL TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF SUCH OTHER PERSON. THE ANSWER WOULD BE AN EMPHATIC 'NO' AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AFTER RECORDING THE EARLIER SAT ISFACTION WOULD HAVE ALREADY FORWARDED THE MATERIAL TO THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE OTHER PERSON, THEREFORE, THERE WOULD BE NO QUESTION OF HIS AGAIN FORMING A SATISFACTION AS REQUIRED UNDER THE AMENDE D PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. 19.11 IN THE OPINION OF THIS COURT, IF A DATE OTHER THAN THE DATE OF SEARCH IS TAKEN TO BE THE RELEVANT DATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF RE CORDING SATISFACTION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, IT WOULD RESULT IN AN ANOMALOUS S ITUATION WHEREIN IN SOME CASES, BECAUSE THE NOTICES UNDER SECTION 153C OF TH E ACT WERE ISSUED PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT, THEY WOULD BE SET ASIDE ON THE GROUN D THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED OR REQUISITION DID NOT BELONG TO THE OTHER PERSON THOUGH THE SAME PERTAINED TO OR THE INFORMAT ION CONTAINED THEREIN RELATED TO SUCH PERSON, WHEREAS IN OTHER CASES ARIS ING OUT OF THE SAME SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, MERELY BECAUSE THE NOTICES ARE ISSUED AFTER THE AMENDMENT, THE SAME WOULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE VALID AS THE BOOKS O F ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED PERTAIN TO OR THE INFORMATI ON CONTAINED THEREIN RELATE TO THE OTHER PERSON. IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE INT ENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE TO DEAL WITH TWO SETS OF IDENTICALLY SITUATED PERSONS DIFFERENTLY, MERELY BECAUSE IN ONE CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED P ERSON RECORDS SATISFACTION ITA NO. 133/AHD/2011 SMT. VANITA VASWANI VS. PR. CIT AY : 2010-2011 11 AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT PRIOR TO THE COMING INTO FORCE OF THE AMENDED PROVISIONS AND IN ANY ANOTHER CASE AFTE R THE COMING INTO FORCE OF THE AMENDED PROVISIONS. 19.12 IN PR. CIT V. VINITA CHAURASIA, [2017] 394 IT R 758/248 TAXMAN 172/82 TAXMANN.COM 153 (DELHI), THE DELHI HIGH COUR T HAS HELD THAT, AT THE OUTSET, IT REQUIRES TO BE NOTICED THAT THE SEAR CH IN THE PRESENT CASE TOOK PLACE ON 19TH JUNE, 2009, I.E., PRIOR TO THE AMENDM ENT IN SECTION 153C(1) OF THE ACT WITH EFFECT FROM 1ST JUNE, 2015. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE REVENUE TO SEEK TO POINT OUT THAT THE DOCUMENT IN Q UESTION 'PERTAINS TO' OR 'RELATES TO' THE ASSESSEE. AGAINST THIS DECISION TH E REVENUE FILED A SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT BEING PR. C IT V. VINITA CHAURASIA [2018] 98 TAXMANN.COM 414/259 TAXMAN 88 ( SC) CONDONED THE DELAY AND DISMISSED THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION. 19.13 IN PR. CIT V. INDEX SECURITIES (P.) LTD. , [2 017] 86 TAXMANN.COM 84 (DELHI), ON WHICH RELIANCE HAD BEEN PLACED ON BEHAL F OF THE PETITIONERS, THE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HELD THUS: '28.4 THE SUPREME COURT ALSO AGREED WITH THE DECISI ON OF THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN KAMLESHBHAI DHARAMSHIBHAI PAT EL (SUPRA) TO THE EXTENT IT HELD THAT 'IT IS AN ESSENTIAL CONDITI ON PRECEDENT THAT ANY MONEY, BULLION OR JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTIC LES OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED OR REQUISITION ED SHOULD BELONG TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SE CTION 153A OF THE ACT.' THE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED: 'THIS PROPOSITION OF LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HIGH COURT IS CORRECT, WHICH IS STATED BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AS WELL.' 28.5 THE ABOVE CATEGORICAL PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE SUP REME COURT CANNOT, BY ANY STRETCH OF IMAGINATION, BE TERMED AS OBITER AS HAS BEEN SUGGESTED BY MR. MANCHANDA. EVEN THE OBITER DICTA OF THE SUPREME COU RT IS BINDING ON THIS COURT. 29. THE SEARCH IN THE CASE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT WAS PRIOR TO 1ST JUNE 2015. APART FROM THE FACT THE SUPREME COURT APPROVE D THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HOLDING THAT THE SEIZED DOCU MENTS SHOULD 'BELONG' TO THE OTHER PERSON, THE LEGAL POSITION IN THIS REG ARD WHERE THE SEARCH HAS TAKEN PLACE PRIOR TO 1ST JUNE 2015 HAS BEEN SETTLED BY THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS (P.) LTD. V. ACIT ( SUPRA). IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. VINITA CHAURASIA ( SUPRA), THIS COURT REITERATED THE ABOVE LEGAL POSITION AFTER DISCUSSIN G THE DECISIONS IN PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. SUPER MALLS (P) LIMIT ED (SUPRA) AND COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL)-2 V. NAU NI DH OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA). THE ESSENTIAL JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREM ENT FOR ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 153 C OF THE ACT (AS IT STOOD PRIOR TO ITS AMENDMENT WITH EFFECT FROM 1ST JUNE 2015) QUA THE ' OTHER PERSON' (IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEES) IS THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS FO RMING THE BASIS OF THE ITA NO. 133/AHD/2011 SMT. VANITA VASWANI VS. PR. CIT AY : 2010-2011 12 SATISFACTION NOTE MUST NOT MERELY 'PERTAIN' TO THE OTHER PERSON BUT MUST BELONG TO THE 'OTHER PERSON'. 30. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED WERE THE TRIAL BALANCE AND BALANCE SHEETS OF THE TWO ASSESSEES FOR THE PERIOD 1ST APRIL TO 13TH SEPTEMBER 2010 (FOR ISRPL) AND 1ST APRIL TO 4TH SEP TEMBER 2010 (FOR VSIPL). BOTH SETS OF DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED NOT FROM THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES BUT FROM THE SEARCHED PERSON I.E. JAGAT A GRO COMMODITIES (P) LTD. IN OTHER WORDS, ALTHOUGH THE SAID DOCUMENTS MIGHT ' PERTAIN' TO THE ASSESSEES, THEY DID NOT BELONG TO THEM. THEREFORE, ONE ESSENTIAL JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT TO JUSTIFY THE ASSUMPTIO N OF JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 153 C OF THE ACT WAS NOT MET IN THE CASE OF THE TWO ASSESSEES.' 19.14 THUS, IT IS THE DATE OF SEARCH THAT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED TO BE THE RELEVANT DATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPLYING THE AMEND ED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C(1) OF THE ACT. 19.15 THIS COURT IS OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE TRIGGER FOR INITIATING ACTION WHETHER UNDER SECTION 153A OR 153C OF THE AC T IS THE SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OR REQUISITION UNDER SECTION 132A OF TH E ACT AND THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS AS EXISTING ON THE DATE OF THE SEARCH WO ULD BE APPLICABLE. THE MERE FACT THAT THERE IS NO LIMITATION FOR THE ASSES SING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON TO RECORD SATISFACTION WILL NOT CHANGE THE T RIGGER POINT, NAMELY, THE DATE OF THE SEARCH. THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON WOULD BE BASED ON THE MATERIAL SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH OR REQUISITION AND NOT THE ASSESSMENT MADE IN THE C ASE OF THE SEARCHED PERSON, THOUGH HE MAY NOTICE SUCH FACT DURING THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, WHETHER THE SATISFACTION IS RECORDED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE SEARCH, AFTER INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U NDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT OR AFTER ASSESSMENT IS FRAMED UNDER SECTION 153 A OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF THE SEARCHED PERSON, THE TRIGGER POINT REMAINS T HE SAME, VIZ., THE SEARCH AND, THEREFORE, THE STATUTORY PROVISION AS PREVAILI NG ON THAT DAY WOULD BE APPLICABLE. WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT SECTIONS 153A AND 153C OF THE ACT ARE MACHINERY PROVISIONS, BUT THE SAME CANNOT BE MADE A PPLICABLE RETROSPECTIVELY, WHEN THE AMENDMENT HAS EXPRESSLY B EEN GIVEN PROSPECTIVE EFFECT. BESIDES, THOUGH SUCH PROVISIONS ARE MACHINE RY PROVISIONS, THE AMENDMENT BRINGS INTO ITS FOLD PERSONS WHO ARE OTHE RWISE NOT COVERED BY THE SAID PROVISIONS AND THEREFORE, AFFECTS THE SUBS TANTIVE RIGHTS OF SUCH PERSON. IN THE OPINION OF THIS COURT, THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN M.A. MERCHANT (SUPRA) WOULD BE SQUARELY APPLICAB LE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THUS: 18. THIS JUDGMENT HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASES OF I) MAHENDRABHAI KASTURCHAND SON VS. ITO, S CA NO.11817 OF 2019 (GUJ); II) CHARMY SANKET NAIK VS. ACIT, SCA NO.1337 4 OF 2019 (GUJ); III) NITA CHAITANYA SHAH, SCA NO.14059 OF 2019 (GUJ). 19. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE POSITION OF LAW, LET US TAKE NOTE OF THE SATISFACTION RECORDED BY THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AS WELL A S AO OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEES. ITA NO. 133/AHD/2011 SMT. VANITA VASWANI VS. PR. CIT AY : 2010-2011 13 THOUGH, THE AO IS COMMON, BUT WHILE EXERCISING HIS DUAL CAPACITY, HE HAS RECORDED FIRST HIS SATISFACTION IN THE CAPACITY OF SEARCHED PERSONS AO, AND THEREAFTER HE RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION IN THE CAPACITY OF THE AO OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEES. FOR THE FACILITY OF REFERENCE, WE TAKE NOTE THE SATISFACTIO N FROM THE LEAD CASE OF SHRI DILIPKUMAR LALWANI PLACED AT PAGE NO.456 TO 483. R ELEVANT PART OF THE SATISFACTION WHILE ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C IS AVAILABL E AT PAGE NO.457 AND WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO TAKE NOTE OF THIS PART, WHICH READS AS UNDER: 20. THEREAFTER, WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS ANNEXED ANN EXURE-A WHICH CONTAINED THE DETAILS OF DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY HIM. ANNEXU RE-B IS THE SATISFACTION IN THE CAPACITY OF THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. IT IS A VERY EXHAUSTIVE NOTE, AND WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD.REPRESENTATIVS, WE HAVE GO NE THROUGH ALL THESE PAGES. WE WOULD LIKE TO TAKE NOTE OF RELEVANT PART OF THE SAT ISFACTION VIZ. PARA-7.3, WHICH READS AS UNDER: 7.3 ON THE BASIS OF DISCUSSION IN THE PRECEDING PAR AGRAPHS, IT IS NOTICED THAT XXX ACCOUNT MENTIONED IN VARIOUS DOCUM ENTS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN THE VENUS GROUP REFE RS TO SHRI DILIP KUMAR LALWANI AND THE INFORMATION CONTAINED THEREIN RELATES TO SHRI DILIP KUMAR LALWANI . THERE ARE VARIOUS TRANSACTION RECORDED IN THE CASH BOOK AND RELATED CASH VOUCHERS. .. .. .. 10. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS AS MENTIONED ABOVE, I AM SATISFIED THAT THE ABOVE MENTIONED DOCUMENTS SEIZED FROM THE FROM THE PREMISES (I) 7. SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 153A THAT THE SEIZED MATERIAL REFERRED TO IN S.NO.5 RELATES/PERTAINS TO THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN S.NO.4 AS PER ANN E XURE B IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS AS MENTIONED IN THE ANNEXURE - B. I AM SATISFIED THAT THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES (I) 801-802, BROADWAY BUSINESS CENTRE, OPP. MAYORS BUNGALOWS, LAW GARDEN. ELLISBRIDGE, AHMEDABAD AND (II) TERRACE OF CRYSTAL ARCADE, N R . NAVRANGPURA TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, C.G ROAD, AHMEDABAD - CONTAINS INFORMATION,WHICH RELATES TO TH E ASSESSEE, SHRI DILIP KUMAR LALWANI. FURTHER, I AM ALSO SATISFIED THAT DOCUMENTS SEIZED HAVE A BEARING ON THE DETERMINATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, | SHREE DILIP KUMAR LALWANI FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 TO 2014-15 THE ASSESSEE BEING OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 15 3A OF THE ACT. I HAVE SATISFACTION TO PROCEED AGAINST TH E ASSESSEE SHRI DILIP KUMAR LALWANI AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THEREFORE, IT IS FIT CASE FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDING U/S 153C OF THE I.T.ACT . 8. ASSESSMENT YEARS INVOLVED A.Y. 2009 - 10 TO A.Y.2014 - 15 ITA NO. 133/AHD/2011 SMT. VANITA VASWANI VS. PR. CIT AY : 2010-2011 14 801-802, BROADWAY BUSINESS CENTRE, OPP. MAYOR'S BUN GALOWS, LAW GARDEN. ELLISBRIDGE. AHMEDABAD AND (II) TERRACE OF CRYSTAL ARCADE, NR. NAVRANGPURA TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, C. G. R OAD, AHMEDABAD CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH RELATES TO THE ASSESSEE, SHRI DILIP KU/RIAR LALWANI. FURTHER, I AM ALSO SATISFIED THAT SATISFIED THAT DOCUMENTS SEIZED HAVE A BEARING ON THE DETERMINATIO N OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, SHREE DILIP KUMAR LALWANI F OR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 TO 2014-15. THE ASSESSEE BEING OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. I HAVE SATI SFACTION TO PROCEED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE SHRI DILIP KUMAR LALWANI AS PE R THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THEREF ORE, IT IS FIT CASE FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDING U/S 153COF THE L.T. AC T. 21. A PERUSAL OF BOTH THE SATISFACTION WOULD INDICA TE THAT THE AO NOWHERE OBSERVED THAT THESE DOCUMENTS BELONGED TO THE ASSES SEE I.E. SHRI DILIPKUMAR LALWANI. HE ONLY OBSERVED THAT THESE DOCUMENTS CON TAINED INFORMATION WHICH RELATE TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, IT COULD BE CONSTRUE D THAT DOCUMENTS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH; AGAIN CARRIED OUT IN THE CASES OF CONCERNED THIRD PERSON, WERE OBSERVED AS RELATES TO THE ASSESSEE. THEY DO NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE. WHEN THE ASSESSEE TOOK THIS OBJECTION BEFORE THE LD.FIRST AP PELLATE AUTHORITY, THE LD.CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE LAW HAS BEEN CHANGED, AND SC OPE OF SECTION 153C W.E.F. 1.6.2015 WOULD BE APPLICABLE ON THESE CASES, BECAUS E THE ASSESSMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN CONCLUDED WHEN THE SCOPE OF SECTION 153C WAS WIDENE D. THE FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS WORTH TO NOTE IN THIS CONNECTION I.E. IN THE CASE OF SHRI DILIPKUMAR LALWANI, WHICH READS AS UNDER: 4.3. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER [DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (1), AHMEDABAD] OF M/S. VEN US INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPER PVT. LTD., IN WHOSE CA SE THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED AND DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE APPELLANT C OMPANY WAS FOUND AND SEIZED HAS RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION NOTE FOR INITIATION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT AND FORWARDED TO THE ACIT, CIRCLE-50(L), NEW DELHI, BEING THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE APPELLANT. THE AO OF APPELLANT HAS RECORDED HIS SAT ISFACTION AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 153C OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961. THE CASE OF APPELLANT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY TRANSFERRED TO THE ACIT, CENTRAL C IRCLE -1(1), AHMEDABAD. THE APPELLANT HAD RAISED OBJECTION BEFOR E THE NEW ASSESSING OFFICER AGAINST THE EARLIER NOTICE ISSUED BY DCIT, CIRCLE - 50(1), NEW DELHI, U/S. 153C OF THE I. T. ACT,1961. THE AO WHO WAS ALSO AO OF M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPER PVT. LTD. HAS WITHDRAWN THE EARLIER NOTICE AND ISSUED FRESH NOTIC E DULY RECORDING THE SATISFACTION. THE APPELLANT HAS CONTENDED THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 153C OF THE ACT WAS NOT VALID AS THE SEIZED MA TERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH NOTICE U/S. 153C WAS ISSUED DID NOT BELONG TO THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THERE IS NO P ROVISION IN THE INCOME TAX ACT EITHER TO DROP THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C OR TO ISSUE ITA NO. 133/AHD/2011 SMT. VANITA VASWANI VS. PR. CIT AY : 2010-2011 15 SECOND SET OF NOTICES. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO RELIE D UPON THE CASE LAWS IN THE CASE OF PEPSICO INDIA HOLDING PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT, RRJ SECURITIES LTD. [62 TAXMANN.COM 391] (2015) & SINHG AD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY [84 TAXMANN.COM 290]. THE AO HAS DEALT WITH THE ARGUMENT RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IN PARA 4.9, 4 .10 & PARA 5 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE PROVISION OF SECTION 153C HAS BEEN AMENDED WITH EFFECT FROM 01/06/2015 WHERE IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SE IZED PERTAINS TO, OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED THEREIN RELATES TO ANY PERSON, OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 153A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, THEN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENT SHALL BE HANDED O VER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTH ER PERSON AND THE AO SHALL PROCEED AGAINST EACH SUCH OTHER PERSON AND ISSUE NOTICE AND ASSESS OR REASSESS INCOME OF SUCH OTHER PERSON IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A. EARLIER SCOPE OF SECTION 153C WAS IN THE CASES WHERE THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE, BUT SUBSEQUENTLY THE PROVISION OF ACT HAS BEEN AMEN DED BY ADDING THE WORD 'RELATING TO' IN THE SECTION 153C. THE AO IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS ISSUED NOTICE AFTER FIRST DAY OF JUNE, 201 5, THEREFORE, THE AMENDED PROVISION IS APPLICABLE IN APPELLANT'S CASE . THE AO IN THE SATISFACTION NOTE HAS REFERRED THE MATERIAL RELATIN G TO THE APPELLANT FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN M/S. VENUS INF RASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPER PVT. LTD. THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED ON THE CASE LAWS WHICH ARE ON THE 'BELONGING TO' PRIOR TO THE AMENDED PROV ISIONS OF 153C W.E.F. 01/06/2015, THEREFORE, NOT RELEVANT TO THE F ACTS OF THE CASE. APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION F OR ISSUE OF SECOND NOTICE U/S. 153C ON THE SAME SET OF FACTS IS NOT TE NABLE AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WITHDRAWN THE EARLIER NOTICE AND ISSUED FRESH NOTICE AFTER RECORDING THE SATISFACTION. THE HONOUR ABLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF A.G. GROUP CORPORATION VS. HAR SH PRAKASH [2013] [35 TAXMANN. COM 48] HAS HELD THAT, IF IN TH E EARLIER NOTICE A FATAL ERROR HAS BEEN CREPT IN AO WILL BE FREE TO IS SUE ANOTHER NOTICE PROVIDED JURISDICTION AND LIMITATION ASPECTS ARE SA TISFIED. 22. THIS FINDING IS NOT IN THE LINE OF LAW LAID DOW N BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ANILK KUMAR GOPIKISHNA AGRAWAL VS. ACIT, AND FURTHER REITERATED IN OTHER CASES. AT THIS STAGE, IT IS PE RTINENT TO NOTE THAT, OTHERWISE ALSO, THESE 43 APPEALS ARE DIRECTLY COVERED BY THE DECISI ON OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ANILK KUMAR GOPIKISHNA AGRAWAL VS. ACIT (SUPRA) BECAUSE ON THE BASIS OF ENTRIES EMBEDDED IN THE DOCUMENTS F OUND AT THE PREMISES OF VENUS INFRABUILD AND SHRI ASHOK VASWANI, NOTICE UNDER SEC TION 153C WAS ISSUED IN THE CASE OCEAN VALVES MFG. CO. PROPRIETOR OF THAT CONC ERN FILED AN SCA NO.19647 OF 2018. THIS WAS LEAD CASE, AND NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT WAS QUASHED. THE ABOVE FACTS ARE CONTAINED IN PARAGRAP H-2.4 OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURTS DECISION. FOR READY REFERENCE, WE TAKE NOT E OF THIS FACT FROM THERE. IT READS AS UNDER: ITA NO. 133/AHD/2011 SMT. VANITA VASWANI VS. PR. CIT AY : 2010-2011 16 2.4 BY AN ORDER DATED 23.7.2018, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER REJECTED THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER.' BEING AGGRIEVE D, THE PETITIONER HAS APPROACHED THIS COURT BY WAY OF PRESENT PETITION CH ALLENGING THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 8.2.2018 ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2A IN CASE OF VENUS GROUP, REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE FACTS AS APPEARING IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19647 OF 2018. 2A.1 THE PETITIONER, WHO IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND PROPR IETOR OF M/S. OCEAN VALVES MFG. CO. FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ON 14.3.2013 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.7,27,700/-. A SEARCH CAME TO BE CONDUCTED ON VARIOUS PREMISES O F SHRI ASHOK SUNDARDAS VASWANI, M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE AND DE VELOPERS P. LTD. ON 13.3.2015. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH VARI OUS DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED IN WHICH INFORMATION ABOUT TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO THE PETITIONER WAS FOUND. THE SEIZED INCRIMINATING DOCU MENTS RELATED TO UNACCOUNTED CASH TRANSACTIONS WHICH WERE ANALYSED A ND CORRELATED WITH OTHER SEIZED DOCUMENTS. AMONG THE CASH TRANSAC TIONS AS RECORDED IN THE SEIZED UNACCOUNTED CASH BOOK WHICH WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, REFERENCE WAS ALSO MAD E TO THE PETITIONER. BASED ON SUCH SEIZED MATERIAL, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER INITIATED PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT BY ISSUING THE IMPUGNED NOTICES DATED 22.3.2018 AND 14.8.2018. SUB SEQUENTLY NOTICES HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER UNDER SE CTION 142(1) OF THE ACT TO WHICH THE PETITIONER HAS RESPONDED. 23. IN THE APPEALS OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEES, IDENTI CAL SITUATION IS THERE. A PERUSAL OF THE SATISFACTION NOTE WOULD INDICATE THA T THE AO NOWHERE HELD THAT DOCUMENTS BELONGED TO THE PRESENT APPELLANTS WERE F OUND AT THE PREMISES OF SEARCHED PERSON/ENTITY. AS FAR AS CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE LD.CIT-DR ARE CONCERNED THEY ARE NOT DIRECTLY ON THE POINT. HE PUT EMPHASIS ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT CITED (SUPRA) FOR BUTTRES SING HIS CONTENTIONS THAT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IS REQUIRED FOR PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153A OR 153C. THIS PROPOSITION IS CONTRARY TO THE DECISION OF HON BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF PR.CIT VS. SAUMYA CONSTRUCT ION P.LTD. (SUPRA). SIMILARLY, THE ORDER OF THE ITAT REFERRED BY THE LD.CIT-DR IS WITH RESPECT TO THE PRESUMPTION OF TRUTH OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COUR SE OF SEARCH. IT IS NOT DIRECTLY ON THE POINT. OTHER ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE LD.CIT -DR WERE RAISED BY THE LD.SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL BEFORE THE HONBLE GUJAR AT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ANIL KUMAR GOPIKISHNA AGRAWAL VS. ACIT (SUPRA) AND THOSE ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. THOUGH, SECTION 153C IS A PROCEDU RAL SECTION, BUT THE JURISDICTION TO ASSESS AN ASSESSEE UNDER THIS SECTION IS BEING I NVOKED WITH HELP OF THE SECTION. THE AO WILL BE IN A POSITION TO PASS ASSESSMENT ORD ER ONLY IF DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY AND OTHER VAL UABLE ARTICLE OR THING, OR THE DOCUMENTS FOUND BELONG TO OTHER PERSON PRIOR TO 1.6 .2015, AND THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON WAS SATISFIED THAT SUCH DOCUMENTS D ISCLOSED UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE DOCUMENTS BELONGED TO THE APPELLANTS CONSIDERED UNDER THIS COMPARTMENT OF ITA NO. 133/AHD/2011 SMT. VANITA VASWANI VS. PR. CIT AY : 2010-2011 17 THE ARGUMENTS WERE NOT FOUND, RATHER CERTAIN INFORM ATION RELATING TO THE ASSESSEES WERE FOUND TO BE EMBEDDED IN THESE DOCUMENTS, BUT P RIOR TO 1.6.2015, JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 153C CANNOT BE INVOKED ON THE BASIS O F SUCH INFORMATION. THEREFORE, WE ALLOW THIS PRELIMINARY GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED B Y THESE 43 APPELLANTS (ASSESSEES) AND QUASH ALL THESE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED IN THE APPEALS MENTIONED AT SERIAL NO.1 TO 43 OF THE CAUSE TITLE OF THIS ORDER. THUS ALL TH E APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED WHEREAS THE REVENUES APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER HAS COMMITTED AN ERROR IN HOLDING THAT EVEN THOUGH THESE ISSUES ARE INTERLINKED, BUT TO KEEP TH E ISSUE ALIVE AND IN THE INTEREST OF REVENUE, THIS PROCEEDINGS ARE COMPLETED . THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF THE LAW. ACCORDINGLY, WE QUASH THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTIO N 263 OF THE ACT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 17 TH SEPTEMBER 2021 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (WASEEM AHMED) (R AJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT AHMEDABAD, DATED 17/09/2021 *BT / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ) ( / THE CIT(A)- 5. , , /DR,ITAT, AHMEDABAD, 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, AHMEDABAD