M/s. Manoj Himmatlal Shah, Pune V. DCIT, Circle 5, Pune

ITA 1705/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 170524514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 06-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Principle of natural justice; Block assessment
• Section: 69C; 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1705/PN/2013 (BLOCK PERIOD : 1996-97 TO 2002-03) M/S MANOJ HIMMATLAL SHAH, 125, N.T.M. BHAVANI PETH, PUNE 411 042. PAN : ACMPS4482L . APPELLANT VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 5, PUNE. . RESPONDENT ITA NO.1949/PN/2013 (BLOCK PERIOD : 1996-97 TO 2002-03) RIKABCHAND R. OSWAL, 321/3, SHANTINAGAR SOCIETY, MAHATMA PHULE PETH, PUNE 411 042. PAN : AAAPO6898C . APPELLANT VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 5, PUNE. . RESPONDENT ITA NO.1950/PN/2013 (BLOCK PERIOD : 1996-97 TO 2002-03) KOKILA RIKABCHAND OSWAL, 321/3, VANDANA APARTMENTS, MAHATMA PHULE PETH, PUNE 411 042. PAN : AAAPO7561N . APPELLANT VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 5, PUNE. . RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : MR. M. K. KULKARNI DEPARTMENT BY : MR. RAJESH DAMOR DATE OF HEARING : 03-03-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18-03-2015 ORDER PER G. S. PANNU, AM THE CAPTIONED THREE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AS THE ASSESSMENT IN ALL THE THREE CASES HAVE ARISEN ON ACCOUNT OF A SEA RCH ACTION U/S 132(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) CARRIED O UT IN THE CASE OF M/S RAJASHREE ENTERPRISES, PROP. SHRI RAMANLAL SHAH AND M/S MAHESHWARI FINANCIERS, PRO. SHRI MAHENDRA SHAH AT ADONI, ANDHR A PRADESH. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE THAT APPEALS IN VOLVE COMMON ISSUES AND THEREFORE THEY HAVE BEEN CLUBBED AND HEARD TOGETHER AND A CONSOLIDATED ORDER IS BEING PASSED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE A ND BREVITY. 2. ITA NO.1705/PN/2013 IN THE CASE OF M/S MANOJ HIM MATLAL SHAH IS TAKEN AS THE LEAD CASE. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSE E IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I II, PUNE DATED 22.07.2013 WHICH, IN TURN, HAS ARISEN FROM ORDER DA TED 27.02.2008 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 158BD R.W.S. 158BC OF THE ACT. 3. IN THIS APPEAL, THE PRIMARY DISPUTE RELATES TO A N ADDITION OF RS.32,00,000/- MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED LOAN AND A SUM OF RS.7,55,062/-ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPEN DITURE U/S 69C OF THE ACT RELATING TO THE INTEREST ON AFORESAID UNEXPLAINED L OAN. APART FROM CHALLENGING THE MERITS OF THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A), ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AN ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL WHICH GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AS IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE HAVE BEEN CONTRAVENED IN THIS CASE WHILE COMPLETING THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT. THE SA ID ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BEFORE US, WHICH WAS NOT RAISED HITHE RTO BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, READS AS UNDER :- (1) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IT REVEALS THAT IN THIS BLOCK ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER S. 158BD R.W.S. 158BC OF THE ACT THE SATISFAC TION NOTE AS PREPARED BY THE A.O. OF THE SEARCHED PARTY WAS NOT PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH AMOUNTS TO THE DENIAL OF THE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO RAISE OBJECTIONS FOR THE SAME. THE REL IANCE IS PLACED ON THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF J ANKI EXPORTS INTERNATIONAL THROUGH S.P. GUPTA VS. UNION OF INDIA (2005) 278 IT R 296 (DEL) 145 (PB PAGE NO.96 TO 100). SINCE THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUS TICE HAVE BEEN CONTRAVENED THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT UNDER APPEAL BE QUASHED. 4. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASS ESSEE, IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN FINALIZED FOR THE BLOC K PERIOD COMPRISING OF 01.04.1995 TO 11.10.2001 BY INVOKING SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN IN VOKED AS A CONSEQUENCE OF A SEARCH ACTION U/S 132(1) OF THE ACT CARRIED OU T ON 12.10.2001 IN THE CASE OF M/S RAJASHREE ENTERPRISES (PROP. SHRI RAMANLAL S HAH) AND M/S MAHESHWARI FINANCIERS (PROP. SHRI MAHENDRA SHAH) AT ADONI, ANDHRA PRADESH. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE CONTENDED THAT ASS ESSMENTS IN TERMS OF SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT WERE FINALIZED IN THE CASE S OF SHRI RAMANLAL SHAH, AND SHRI MAHENDRA SHAH. THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT COULD BE INVOKED IN THE HA NDS OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY AFTER RECORDING THE MANDATED SATISFACTION. IT IS P OINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED WITH COPY OF THE SATISFACTION NOTE AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUFFE RS FROM A LEGAL DEFECT. JUSTIFYING THE ADMISSION OF THE SAID ADDITIONAL GRO UND OF APPEAL, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME IS A LEGAL I SSUE AND THE NECESSARY FACTS ARE EMERGING FROM RECORD AND THEREFORE IT SHO ULD BE ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT UNDER IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE CASE OF M/S BHAGYASHREE STEEL CENTER VS. DCIT, VIDE ITA NO.1706/PN/2013 DATED 21.01.2015 THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS ADMITTED SIMILAR ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL AND RE STORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOLLOWING THE JUDGEME NT OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JANKI EXPORTS INTERNATIONAL VS . UNION OF INDIA, 278 ITR 296 (DELHI), A COPY OF THE SAID ORDER HAS ALSO BEEN PLA CED ON RECORD. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE HAS OPPOSED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ADMISSION OF THE AFORE SAID ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL ON THE PRETEXT THAT THE SAME WAS NOT RAISED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO THE PRECEDENT RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT THE AFORESAID AD DITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL DESERVES TO BE ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION. THE GROU ND OF APPEAL RAISED INVOLVES A POINT OF LAW WHICH RELATES TO A JURISDIC TIONAL ASPECT AND QUITE CLEARLY THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORDS JUSTIFY ITS ADMISSIO N, AS OUR SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSION WOULD SHOW. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT WAS PUT ACROSS TO THE PARTIES THAT THE AFORESAID GROUND DESERVES TO BE ADMITTED A ND IN THAT LIGHT THE RIVAL COUNSELS HAVE ADVANCED THEIR ARGUMENTS ON MERITS OF THE SAID ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL. 7. ON MERITS OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL, IT WAS A COMMON POINT BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT IDENTICAL CONTROVERSY HAS BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S BHAGYASHRE E STEEL CENTER (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE RELEVANT DISCUSSION IS AS UNDER :- 6. ON MERITS, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSES SEE RELIED UPON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF JANKI EXPORTS INTERNATIONAL VS. UNION OF INDIA, 278 ITR 296 (DEL) TO SUBMIT THAT ANY PERSON WHO IS TO BE PROCEEDED WITH U/S 158BD OF THE ACT MU ST BE INFORMED ABOUT THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH HAS BEE N RECORDED AND THAT SUCH PERSON MUST BE GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO PU T-FORTH HIS OBJECTION TO THE SAME. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE POINTED OUT THAT IN T HE PRESENT CASE, THE SATISFACTION NOTE HAS NOT BEEN PUT ACROSS TO THE AS SESSEE WHICH IS CLEARLY EMERGING FROM THE DISCUSSION MADE BY THE CIT(A) IN PARA 4.1 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IN THE ABOVE CONTEXT, WE HAVE PERUSED THE F OLLOWING DISCUSSION IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AT PARA 4.1 :- 4.1 I HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE SATISFACTION NOTE OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER (ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE) OF RAJASH REE ENTERPRISES/ MAHESHWARI FINANCIERS WHICH WAS ENCLOSED BY WAY OF A COVERING LETTER DATED 06.04.2004 ADDRESSED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE APPELLANT. THIS COVERING LETTER CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE LOAN TR ANSACTIONS AMOUNTING TO RS.3,96,830/- WERE SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S OF RAJASHREE ENTERPRISES AND MAHESHWARI FINANCIERS AGAINST WHOM SEARCH AND SEIZURE WAS CONDUCTED ON 12.10.2001. THE COVERING L ETTER IS ACCOMPANIED BY A SATISFACTION NOTE RUNNING INTO 10 PAGES WHICH DETAILS THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, DOCUMENTS, BANK PASS BOOKS ETC. THAT WAS SEIZED AND VERIFIED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND THE ENQUIRIES THAT WERE CONDUCTED POST-SEARCH. IT DETAILS THE MO DUS OPERANDI ADOPTED BY VARIOUS PARTIES INCLUDING THE APPELLANT, IN COLLUSION WITH RAJASHREE ENTERPRISES AND MAHESHWARI FINANCIERS TO ROUTE THEIR UNACCOUNTED MONEY THROUGH THAT CONCERN IN THE GARB OF LOAN. THEREFORE, THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WHO HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE SEARCHED PERSONS VIZ. MAHESHWARI FINANCIER S AND RAJASHREE ENTERPRISES IS FOUND TO BE CLEARLY RECORDED THAT TH E UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOUND IN THE BOOKS BELONGS TO THE APPELLANT. THE EX TRACT OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS INCLUDING THE LOAN AMOUNTS AND INTEREST THEREON HAVE BEEN DULY REPRODUCED IN THE SATISFACTION NOTE AND THEREF ORE, THE REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 158BD THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, OTHER DOC UMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON, IS SEEN TO HAVE BEEN MET. THEREFORE, ALTHOUGH THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN PROV IDED A COPY OF SATISFACTION NOTE, A PERUSAL OF THE SAME SHOWS THAT IT CONTAINS THE DETAILED WORKING OF THE LOAN ENTRIES AND THE INTERE ST THEREON AS FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF MAHESHWARI FINANCIERS AND THEREFORE , IT CAN BE CONCLUDED THAT THE SATISFACTION BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON IS DULY RECORDED, PRIOR TO INITIATI ON OF ACTION U/S 158BD R.W.S. SEC. 158BC. 7. THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION REVEALS THAT AFTER EXAM INING THE RECORD THE CIT(A) HAS COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THOUGH SATISFA CTION NOTE WAS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER YET A COPY OF THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JANKI EXPORTS INTERNATIONAL (SUPRA) WAS CONSIDERING THE PLEA OF T HE ASSESSEE REGARDING ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 158BD OF THE ACT. THOUGH TH E CHALLENGE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 158BD OF THE ACT BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WAS BY WAY OF A WRIT PETITION BUT THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION IN THE O RDER OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IS RELEVANT :- 6. WE FIND THAT SECTION 158BD IS SOMEWHAT ANALOGOU S TO SECTION 147 IN SO FAR AS THE PROCEDURE THAT IS REQUIRED TO BE FOLLOWED. SECTION 147 CONTEMPLATES THAT, IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME, THEN NOTICE CAN BE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. SO FAR AS SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO BE SATISFIE D THAT THERE IS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. UPON SUCH SATISFACTION, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO FORWARD THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS, PAPERS, ETC. TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO IS REQUIRED TO ASSESS THE PER SON IN RESPECT OF WHOM THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME HAS BEEN DISCOVERED. ON CE THIS IS DONE, WE FEEL THAT THE PERSON WHO IS TO BE PROCEEDE D AGAINST UNDER SECTION 158BD AND THEN SECTION 158BC, MUST BE INFOR MED ABOUT THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH HAS BEE N RECORDED AND HE MUST BE GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO OBJECT TO THE SAME. SATISFACTION CAN BE ARRIVED ON SOME MATERIAL. THAT MATERIAL WOULD PROVIDE THE REASONABLE SATISFACTION. IN THE CASE OF GKN DRIVESHAFTS (INDIA) LTD V. ITO & ORS. (2003) 179 CTR (SC) 11 : (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC), THE SUPREME COURT, WHILE CONSIDERING THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 148, POINTED OUT AS UNDER : 'HOWEVER, WE CLARIFY THAT WHEN A NOTICE UNDER SECTI ON 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT IS ISSUED, THE PROPER COURSE OF ACTION FOR THE NOTICEE IS TO FILE A RETURN AND IF HE SO DESIRES, T O SEEK REASONS FOR ISSUING NOTICES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BOUND TO FURNISH REASONS WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME. ON RECEIPT OF REA SONS, THE NOTICEE IS ENTITLED TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO ISSUANCE OF NOTICE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BOUND TO DISPOSE OF THE SA ME BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER.' 7. USING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING, WE DIRECT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUPPLY THE REASON RECORDED FOR ARRIVING AT A SATISFACTION TO THE PETITIONER WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME UPON THE PE TITIONER FILING A RETURN AS REQUIRED BY THE IMPUGNED NOTICE. ON RECEI PT OF THE SAME, THE PETITIONER WOULD BE ENTITLED TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL DISPOSE OF T HE SAME BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER. IT WILL BE OPEN FOR THE PETITIONE R TO TAKE THE OBJECTION WITH REGARD TO LIMITATION AND IT WILL BE FOR THE AS SESSING OFFICER TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER. AFTER SUCH SPEAKING ORDER IS PASS ED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROCEED FURTHER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LA W. 8. THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION BY THE HONBLE HIGH COU RT REVEALS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT HAS BEEN FOU ND TO BE SOMEWHAT ANALOGOUS TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. ON THAT BASIS , IT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT THAT THE PERSON WHO IS TO BE PROCEEDED WITH U/S 158BD OF THE ACT AND THEN SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT, SUCH PERSON MUST BE INFORMED ABOUT THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHI CH HAS BEEN RECORDED AND THAT SUCH PERSON MUST BE GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTU NITY TO OBJECT TO THE SAME. IN THIS BACKGROUND, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT D IRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUPPLY THE REASONS RECORDED FOR ARRIVING AT THE SATISFACTION CONTEMPLATED U/S 158BD OF THE ACT AND ONLY AFTER DI SPOSING OF THE OBJECTIONS TAKEN BY THE PETITIONER, THE ASSESSMENT WAS TO BE C OMPLETED THEREAFTER. 9. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE SATISF ACTION NOTE HAS NOT BEEN SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE, AS DEDUCED BY THE CIT(A). THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE PARITY OF REASONING LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JANKI EXPORTS INTERNATIONAL (SUPRA), WE SET-ASIDE T HE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO TH E FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO SHALL SUPPLY THE REASONS RECORDED FOR A RRIVING AT THE SATISFACTION FOR INVOKING SECTION 158D OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSE E. ON RECEIPT OF SUCH REASONS, ASSESSEE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO FILE OBJECTI ONS WHICH SHALL BE DISPOSED- OFF BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY WAY OF A SPEAKING O RDER AND ONLY THEREAFTER HE SHALL PROCEED TO PASS A FRESH ASSESSMENT IN ACCORDA NCE WITH LAW. 10. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RAISED A PL EA THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ALREADY EXAMINED THE RECORD AND IS SATISFIED WITH T HE SATISFACTION RECORDED, THUS, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR REMANDING THE MATTER, ON THE BASIS OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF JANKI EXPORTS INTERNATIONAL (SUPRA). IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE AFORESAID PLEA OF THE REVENUE DOES NOT MEET WITH THE PROPOSITION OF LAW L AID DOWN BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT, WHICH WE HAVE DISCUSSED ABOVE. W E FIND NO MERIT IN THE AFORESAID PLEA OF THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISPOSED-OFF WITHOUT EXAMINING THE MERITS OF THE IM PUGNED ADDITION OF RS.5,17,956/- WHICH HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY INVOKING SECTION 69C OF THE ACT. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, AS ABOVE. 8. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JANK I EXPORTS INTERNATIONAL (SUPRA) HELD THAT ANY PERSON WHO IS TO BE PROCEEDED WITH U/S 158BD OF THE ACT MUST BE INFORMED ABOUT THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WHICH HAS BEEN RECORDED AND THAT SUCH PERSON MUST BE GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO PUT-FORTH HIS OBJECTION TO THE SAME. IN THE PRE SENT CASE, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT SU CH SATISFACTION NOTE HAS NOT BEEN PUT ACROSS TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS CLEARL Y EMERGING FROM FOLLOWING DISCUSSION MADE BY THE CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER :- 4.1 I HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE SATISFACTION NOTE OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER (ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE) OF RAJASHREE ENTE RPRISES/ MAHESHWARI FINANCIERS WHICH WAS ENCLOSED BY WAY OF A COVERING LETTER DATED 24.05.2004. THIS COVERING LETTER CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE LOAN TR ANSACTIONS AMOUNTING TO RS.32,00,000/- WERE SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF RAJASHREE ENTERPRISES AND MAHESHWARI FINANCIERS AGAINST WHOM SEARCH AND SEIZURE WAS CONDUCTED ON 12.10.2001. THE COVERING LETTER IS ACCOMPANIED B Y A SATISFACTION NOTE RUNNING INTO 10 PAGES WHICH DETAILS THE BOOKS OF AC COUNTS, DOCUMENTS, BANK PASS BOOKS ETC. THAT WAS SEIZED AND VERIFIED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND THE ENQUIRIES THAT WERE CONDUCTED POST-SEARCH. IT DETAILS THE MODUS OPERANDI ADOPTED BY VARIOUS PARTIES INCLUDING THE APPELLANT, IN COLLUSION WITH RAJASHREE ENTERPRISES AND MAHESHWARI FINANCIERS TO ROUTE THEI R UNACCOUNTED MONEY THROUGH THAT CONCERN IN THE GARB OF LOAN. THEREFOR E, THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE SEA RCHED PERSONS VIZ. MAHESHWARI FINANCIERS AND RAJASHREE ENTERPRISES IS FOUND TO BE CLEARLY RECORDED THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOUND IN THE B OOKS BELONGS TO THE APPELLANT. THE EXTRACT OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS INC LUDING THE LOAN AMOUNTS AND INTEREST THEREON HAVE BEEN DULY REPRODUCED IN T HE SATISFACTION NOTE AND THEREFORE, THE REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 158BD THAT THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS, OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED SHALL B E HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTH ER PERSON, IS SEEN TO HAVE BEEN MET. THEREFORE, ALTHOUGH THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED A COPY OF SATISFACTION NOTE, A PERUSAL OF THE SAME SHOWS THAT IT CONTAINS THE DETAILED WORKING OF THE LOAN ENTRIES AND THE INTEREST THEREO N AS FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF MAHESHWARI FINANCIERS AND THEREFORE, THIS GROUND TH AT NO DOCUMENTS, PAPERS OR OTHER EVIDENCE HAVE BEEN ACTUALLY HANDED OVER TO HIS ASSESSING OFFICER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON IS CON SIDERED TO BE A FRIVOLOUS GROUND. [UNDERLINED FOR EMPHASIS BY US] 9. THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IS REVEALS THAT AFTER EXAMINING THE RECORD, CIT(A) CAME TO CONCLUDE THAT THOUGH THE SATISFACTION NOTE WAS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER YET A CO PY OF THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN THE A FORESAID FACTUAL BACKGROUND, FOLLOWING THE PARITY OF REASONING LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JANKI EXPORTS INTERNATION AL (SUPRA) AS WELL AS OUR EARLIER DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S BHAGYASHREE STE EL CENTER (SUPRA), WE SET- ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO SHALL SUPP LY THE REASONS RECORDED FOR ARRIVING AT THE SATISFACTION FOR INVOKING SECTION 1 58D OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. ON RECEIPT OF SUCH REASONS, ASSESSEE SHA LL BE ENTITLED TO FILE OBJECTIONS WHICH SHALL BE DISPOSED-OFF BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER AND ONLY THEREAFTER HE SHALL PROCEED TO PASS A FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 10. SINCE WE HAVE SET-ASIDE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE PRELIMINARILY GROUND, THE MERITS OF THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.39,55,062/- HAVE NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY US, WHICH WOULD BE RE-VISITED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW IN THE ENSUING PROCEEDINGS. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 12. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT WAS COMMON POINT BET WEEN THE PARTIES THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE OTHER TWO CAPTIONED CASES, NAMELY, (I) RIKABCHAND R. OSWAL; AND, (II) KOKILA RIKABCHAND OS WAL ARE PARI-MATERIA TO THOSE CONSIDERED BY US IN THE CASE OF M/S MANOJ HIM MATLAL SHAH (SUPRA) IN THE EARLIER PARAS. THEREFORE, OUR DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S MANOJ HIMMATLAL SHAH (SUPRA) SHALL APPLY MUTATIS-MUTANDIS IN THE OTHER TWO CAPTIONED APPEALS ALSO. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE OTHER TWO CAPTIONED APPE ALS, THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET-ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO SHALL SUPPLY THE REASONS RECORDED FOR ARRIVING AT THE SATISFACTION FOR INVOKING SECTION 158D OF THE ACT T O THE ASSESSEE. ON RECEIPT OF SUCH REASONS, ASSESSEE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO FILE OBJECTIONS WHICH SHALL BE DISPOSED-OFF BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY WAY OF A S PEAKING ORDER AND ONLY THEREAFTER HE SHALL PROCEED TO PASS A FRESH ASSESSM ENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 13. RESULTANTLY, THE CAPTIONED APPEALS OF THE ASSES SEE ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, AS ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 18 TH MARCH, 2015. SD/- SD /- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (G.S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE, DATED: 18 TH MARCH, 2015. SUJEET COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : - 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT(A)-III, PUNE; 4) THE CIT-III, PUNE; 5) THE DR A BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., PUNE