Sudhir Kumar.D.Shah - HUF, Hyderabad V. Dy. CIT, Central Circle-2, Hyderabad

ITA 1876/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7055 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 9 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-10-2019
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 30-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y V S T SAI
• Keywords: Gift; Search and seizure; Document seized; Validity of assessment; Documents seized; Set aside; Capital Gains
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 153A; 139; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. A.Y. APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1871/HYD/13 2002-03 SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR D.SHAH HUF, HYDERABAD [PAN: AAGHS6336H] DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, HYDERABAD 1872/HYD/13 2003-04 1873/HYD/13 2004-05 1874/HYD/13 2005-06 1875/HYD/13 2006-07 1876/HYD/13 2007-08 1877/HYD/13 2008-09 FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI K.C.DEVDAS, AR FOR REVENUE : S HRI Y.V.S.T.SAI, CIT - DR DATE OF HEARING : 2 1 - 1 0 - 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25 - 1 0 - 2019 O R D E R PER BENCH : THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-1, HYDERABAD, FOR THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. SINC E THE FACTS AND ISSUES INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE C OMMON AND IDENTICAL, EXCEPT THE AMOUNTS MENTIONED THEREIN, ALL TH ESE SUDHIR KUMAR D.SHAH HUF (GROUP CASES) :- 2 -: APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED-OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER. ITA NOS.1871/HYD/2013 1872/HYD/13, 1873/HYD/13, 1874/HYD/13, 1875/HYD/13 & 1876/HYD/13: 2. THE ASSESSEE FILED VARIOUS ADDITIONAL GROUNDS DUR ING THE FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE COMMON IS SUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THESE APPEALS BY WAY OF ADDITIO NAL GROUNDS ARE AS UNDER: (I) SINCE THE SEIZED MATERIAL REFERRED TO BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER DOES NOT BELONG TO THE APPELLANT, THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C IS BAD IN LAW. (II). THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS)-1, HYDERABAD [LD.CIT(A)] FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE RE WAS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND BELONGING TO THE APPEL LANT AS ENVISAGED IN SECTION 153C OF THE ACT DURING THE COU RSE OF 132 OPERATIONS IN THE CASE OF SUDHIR SHAH (INDIVIDUAL). THEREFORE, THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT IS INVALID, BAD IN LAW AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. (III). THE LD.CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT ENTI RE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BASED ON THE REVENUE RECORDS OBTAINED FROM M RO, RAJENDRANAGAR MANDAL DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS WHICH WAS NEVER PUT TO THE APPELLANT FO R REBUTTAL AND THEREFORE TO ASSESS THE INCOME ALREADY DISCLOSE D BY THE APPELLANT IN THE RETURN FILED UNDER SECTION 139 OF THE ACT BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH WITHOUT ANY INCRIMINATING MATERI AL IS INVALID, BAD IN LAW AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. (IV). WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS, THE A SSESSMENT FRAMED IS WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE PROCEDURES PRE SCRIBED UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT VIS - A - VIS RECORDI NG OF SATISFACTION AS ENJOINED IN SECTION 153C OF THE ACT IN THE ASSESSMENT FILE OF THE SEARCHED PARTY I..E, SUDHIR SHAH (INDIVIDUAL) THAT THE SEIZED MATERIAL BELONGED TO T HE APPELLANT AND IT HAD UNDISCLOSED INCOME ARISING FROM SUCH MAT ERIAL. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT UNDER 153C OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW, INVALID AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. SUDHIR KUMAR D.SHAH HUF (GROUP CASES) :- 3 -: (V). THE LD.CIT(A) FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE INCOME A SSESSED AT RS.1,50,000 WAS DISCLOSED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN FI LED UNDER SECTION 139 OF THE ACT MUCH BEFORE THE DATE OF SEAR CH. THUS, THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE AY.2002-03 STANDS ABATED ON THE DATE OF SEARCH AND THEREFORE, TO ASSESS THE SAME INCOME UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT WITHOUT ANY INCRIMINATING M ATERIAL IS INVALID, BAD IN LAW AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. (VI). WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS, THE E NTIRE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W. SECTION 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) ASSESSING THE INCO ME ARISING ON AGRICULTURAL LANDS SITUATED IN VATINAGULAPALLY V ILLAGE IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT HUF IS INVALID, BAD IN LAW A ND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AS THE INCOME/ASSETS DOES NOT BELONG T O SUDHIR KUMAR D.SHAH (HUF). THEREFORE, THE INCOME RETURNED AND ASSESSED AT RS.1,50,000 MUST BE DELETED. 2.1. THE COMMON ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THES E APPEALS IS THE VALIDITY OF INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S.153C OF THE ACT, WITHOUT HAVING INCRIMINATING MATERIAL AND WITHO UT RECORDING THE REASONS FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. 2.2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT, THE ASSESSEE IS HUF AND HAS NOT FILED ITS RETURNS OF INCOME. A SEARCH AN D SEIZURE OPERATION U/S.132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE RESI DENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 09-10-2007. THE ASSESSEE IS STATED TO BE ONE OF THE CO-OWNERS AND THE LANDLORDS OF S HAH GROUP, WHO ENTERED INTO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH M/S.DAKSHIN SHELTERS PVT. LTD., WHERE THE ASSESSEE AND THE FAMILY MEMBERS HANDED OVER THE PROPERTIES FOR THE PUR POSE OF DEVELOPMENT. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS, CERTAIN DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BELONGING TO SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR D.SHAH (HUF) WAS STATED TO HAVE BEEN FOUN D AND SEIZED AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HENCE, NOTICE SUDHIR KUMAR D.SHAH HUF (GROUP CASES) :- 4 -: U/S.153C OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RESP ONSE TO WHICH, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURNS OF INCOME FOR TH E IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS. 3. THE AO TAKEN UP THE CASE FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICES U/S.143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED TO THE ASS ESSEE AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) R.W.S.153C O F THE ACT ON TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,22,100/- BY ORDER DATED 31 -12- 2009 FOR THE AY.2002-03. THE DETAILS OF THE ASSESSED I NCOME FOR THE VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION: S.NO A.Y. ASSESSED INCOME (RS) DATE OF ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT 1 2002 - 03 2,22,100 31-12-2009 2 2003 - 04 48,12,960 3 2004 - 05 4,12,130 4 2005 - 06 4,20,530 5 2006 - 07 2,64,26,335 6 2007 - 08 13,99,26,290 7 2008 - 09 3,32,580 3.1. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO MADE TH E ADDITIONS REPRESENTING THE SALE OF LANDED PROPERTIES S ITUATED AT VATTINAGULAPALLY VILLAGE. THE AO ASSED THE SALE CONSID ERATION FOR CAPITAL GAINS PURPOSES AND ALSO TREATED THE AGRICUL TURAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. AGAINST THE ORD ER OF AO, THE ASSESSEE WENT ON APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY ASSESSMENT ORDER ON MERITS. DU RING THE APPEAL HEARING BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY (FA A), THE LD.AR ALSO ARGUED THAT INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S.1 53C OF THE ACT, WITHOUT HAVING THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IS IN VALID. THE LD.CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE LD. AR, SUDHIR KUMAR D.SHAH HUF (GROUP CASES) :- 5 -: DURING THE APPEAL HEARING AND REFERRED THE SEIZED M ATERIAL MARKED AS ANNEXURE A/SDS/2, WHEREIN SHE OBSERVED THAT THE COMPLETE DETAILS WERE AVAILABLE WITH REGARD TO THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY AT CHILKOOR VILLAGE, W HICH WAS CONFIRMED AND ADMITTED BY SHRI APOORVA SHAH, NEPHEW O F THE ASSESSEE IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM HIM U/S.132A O F THE ACT ON 09-10-2007. THEREFORE HELD THAT THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.153C OF THE ACT WERE RIGHTLY INITIATED AND DISMISSE D THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY, ON MER ITS THE LD.CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR TH E AYS. 2002-03 TO 2005-06, 2007-08 & 2008-09 AND FOR THE AY. 2006- 07 PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. AGAINST THE ORDERS OF LD.CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. DURING THE APPEAL HEARING, LD.AR RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUNDS WITH REGARD TO VALIDITY OF INITIATION OF PROC EEDINGS U/S.153C OF THE ACT, WITHOUT HAVING THE SEIZED MATERIAL AND VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S.153C OF THE ACT, WIT HOUT RECORDING THE REASONS IN THE CASE OF SEARCHED PERSO N. REQUESTING FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS, THE L D.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF SH RI SUNIL D.SHAH AND SHRI SUDHIR D.SHAH INDIVIDUALS. RE FERRING TO PANCHANAMA AND ITS ANNEXURES FROM PG.3 TO 10 OF THE PA PER BOOK. LD.AR ARGUED THAT NEITHER THE PANCHANAMA NOR THE AANNEXURES INDICATE THAT THE MATERIAL SEIZED BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT FROM THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT, IT IS FOUND THAT THERE WERE NO REASONS RECORDED IN THE CASE OF THE SEARCHED PERSON F OR SUDHIR KUMAR D.SHAH HUF (GROUP CASES) :- 6 -: INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S.153C OF THE ACT IN THE C ASE OF ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO CASE FO R INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C AND SUBMITTED THAT TH E ADDITIONAL GROUNDS GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE ASSESSMENT, HE NCE REQUESTED TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD.DR VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS. REFERRING TO PG.1 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT, THE LD.DR SHOWN US THAT TH E AO HAD RECORDED THE REASONS IN ASSESSEES CASE FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S.153C OF THE ACT. SIMILARLY, LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THERE WAS NO SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE IN THE ANNEXURES OF PANCHANAMA, AMPLE MATERIAL AND EVIDENCES ARE AVAILA BLE IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL MARKED AS A/SDS/2 AND THE CONTENTS O F THE MATERIAL IS SUPPORTED BY THE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM SHRI APOORVA SHAH, THE NEPHEW OF THE ASSESSEE, WHO IS HAN DLING ALL THE ACCOUNTS OF THE GROUP. THUS, SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND AND SEIZED FROM THE SEAR CHED PERSON, HENCE ARGUED THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAIS ED BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR ADMISSION, HENCE RE QUESTED TO REJECT THE SAME. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. PRIMA-FACIE, FROM THE PANCHANAMA AND THE ANNEXURES, WE FIND THAT THERE WAS NO SEIZED MA TERIAL FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH FROM TH E PREMISES OF THE SEARCHED PERSONS, I.E., SHRI SUNIL D .SHAH AND SUDHIR KUMAR D.SHAH HUF (GROUP CASES) :- 7 -: SHRI SUDHIR D.SHAH BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE MA TERIAL FOUND AND SEIZED FROM THE SEARCHED PERSON REQUIRES F URTHER VERIFICATION FOR IDENTIFYING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YE ARS. THE DEPARTMENT ALSO DID NOT PLACE ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED IN THE CASE OF SEARCHED PE RSON AS REQUIRED U/S.153A/153C OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS NEED TO B E ADMITTED AND ADJUDICATED. HENCE, WE ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS. 6.1. ADVANCING THE ARGUMENTS DURING THE APPEAL HEARI NG, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TAKEN OUR ATTENTION TO THE PANCHANAMA AND THE ANNEXURE IN PG.1 OF ASSESSEES P APER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE WERE THREE ANNEXURES FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH I.E., PGS. 1 AND 2 ARE BEING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE THIRD ONE IS CASH OF RS.5.00 LAKHS FOUND AND SEIZED. PG.NO.6 OF THE PAPER BOOK IS INVENTORY OF CASH BELONGING TO SHRI SUNIL D.SHAH BUT N OT BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOUND A ND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH MARKED AS ANNEXUR E: A/SDS/2 WERE STATED TO BE BELONGING TO SHRI APOORVA SHA H, S/O. SUNIL D SHAH. SIMILARLY, PG.4 IS RELATED TO SUNI L D.SHAH AND PG.5 IS FOUND FROM THE ROOM OF SHRI APOORVA SHAH , S/O.SUNIL D.SHAH AND NONE OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL BELO NGED TO THE ASSESSEE. LD.AR FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A HUF BUT NOT AN INDIVIDUAL. SINCE THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED IN THE PREMISES OF THE INDIVIDUALS, FOR INITIATING PROCEEDIN GS U/S.153C OF THE ACT, THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL BELONGIN G TO ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED. SINCE THERE IS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL SUDHIR KUMAR D.SHAH HUF (GROUP CASES) :- 8 -: FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE SEARCHED PERSON BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS N O CASE FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S.153C OF THE ACT AND HENC E ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S.153C R.W.S. 143(3) OF TH E ACT, WITHOUT HAVING SEIZED MATERIAL REQUIRED TO BE CANCELLE D. 6.2. THE SECOND PROPOSITION MADE BY THE LD.AR IS THAT THERE WAS NO SATISFACTION RECORDED BY THE AO IN THE CASE OF SEARCHED PERSON. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE A CT, WHERE THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON SATISFIED THAT MONEY, BULL ION, JEWELLERY, BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR ANY OTHER MATERIAL RELA TE TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSON REFERRED TO SECT ION 153A OF THE ACT, THEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DOCUMENT RECEIPTS SEIZED SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE AO , HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON. THUS, IT IS MANDATORY REQUIREMENT OF THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON TO RECORD THE SATISFACTION WITH REGARD TO THE OWNERSHIP OF THE CORRECT PERSON IN THE FILE OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. ON THIS ISSUE, HE ALSO TAKEN THE SUPPORT OF THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.24/ 2015 DATED 31-12-2015. THE LD.AR FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE HON 'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SINHGAD TECHNICA L EDUCATION SOCIETY (2017) 397 ITR 344 / (2017) [84 TAXMANN.COM 290] (SC) HELD THAT WITHOUT HAVING INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S.1 53C OF THE ACT REQUIRED TO BE SET ASIDE . THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS (P) LTD., VS. ACIT (2014) [50 TAXMANN.COM 299) (DELHI)HELD THAT UNLESS AND UNTIL IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED DO NOT BELONG TO SEARCHED PERSON, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C DO NOT GET SUDHIR KUMAR D.SHAH HUF (GROUP CASES) :- 9 -: ATTRACTED . THE LD.AR ALSO RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS TO SUPPORT HIS ARGUMENTS WITH REGARD TO VALIDITY OF INITIA TION OF PROCEEDINGS, WITHOUT HAVING SEIZED MATERIAL AND WITHOU T RECORDING THE REASONS IN THE HANDS OF THE SEARCHED PE RSON. I. CIT VS. SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY [397 IT R 344] (SC); II. PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS (P) LTD., VS. ACIT [370 ITR 2 95) (DELHI); III. VIJAYBHAIN.CHANDRANI VS. ACIT [333 ITR 436] (GUJARA T); IV. CIT VS. LATE J.CHANDRASEKAR (HUF) [338 ITR 61] (MADRAS); V. PR.CIT VS. SMT.SUNITA BAI [78 TAXMANN.COM 274] (KARNATAKA); VI. CIT VS. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK (P) LTD., [385 ITR 346] (KARNATAKA); VII. CIT VS. SHETTYS PHARMACEUTICALS & BIOLOGICALS LTD., [ 232 TAXMAN 268] (AP); VIII. PR.CIT VS. RAJEEV BEHI [398 ITR 615] (DELHI); IX. PEPSI FOODS (P) LTD., VS. ACIT [231 TAXMAN 58] (DELHI ); X. AVINASH ESTATES & RESORTS LTD., VS. DCIT [151 ITD 399]; 6.3. PER CONTRA, THE LD.DR SUPPORTED THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S.153C OF THE ACT. LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT SHRI SUNIL D.SHAH AND SHRI SUDHIR D.SHAH ARE BROTHERS AN D SHRI APOORVA SHAH IS SON OF SHRI SUNIL SHAH, WHO IS THE NEPHEW OF THE ASSESSEE. BOTH THE BROTHERS HAVE ACQUIRED LARGE TR ACK OF LAND AT VATTINAGULAPALLI VILLAGE AND ENTERED IN TO DEVEL OPMENT AGREEMENT WITH M/S.DAKSHIN SHELTERS PVT. LTD. SHRI APOOR VA D SUDHIR KUMAR D.SHAH HUF (GROUP CASES) :- 10 -: SHAH, MAINTAINED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ENTIRE GROU P. REFERRING TO PG.19 AND 20 OF THE PAPER BOOK, LD.DR S UBMITTED THAT (ANNEXURE A/SDS/2) THERE WERE RECORDINGS OF THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM RCR, (ABBREVIATION RELATES TO SH RI RAMA CHANDRA REDDY), TO WHOM THE LANDS WERE SOLD. PG. 21 SHOWS THE AMOUNTS PAID TO MR.SUDHIR, WHO IS NONE OTHE R THAN THE ASSESSEE ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS TOTALLING TO RS.75.0 0 LAKHS. REFERRING TO PG.22 OF THE PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED THAT THERE WERE NOTINGS RECORDED AGAINST THE NAME OF MR.SUDHIR SHAH, W HITE AND BLACK COMPONENTS OF PAYMENTS MADE TO HIM. LD.DR ALSO REFERRED TO PG.23 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHEREIN IT SHOWS THE PAYMENTS MADE TO MR.SUDHIR D.SHAH IN CASH AND CHEQUE . LD.DR ARGUED THAT PAGRE.19 TO 33 OF THE PAPER BOOK S HOWS THE PAYMENT OF HUGE AMOUNTS TO THE ASSESSEE. THESE PAYMENTS WERE CONFIRMED BY THE STATEMENTS RECORDED FROM SHRI D.APORRVA SHAH ALSO. REFERRING TO PG.9 OF STATEMENT REC ORDED FROM SHRI APOORVA SHAH ON 09-10-2007 LD.DR TAKEN OUR ATTENTION TO QUESTION NO.9, WHEREIN SHRI APOORVA SHAH, REPLIED THAT THE TRANSACTION IN RESPECT OF RECEIPTS FROM MR.RAMA CHANDRA REDDY AND SHRI G.CHANDRA SEKHAR RED DY. LD.DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE FAMILY MEMBERS AR E STAYING IN THE SAME HOUSE IN DIFFERENT ROOMS AND THEY ARE HAVING SHAREHOLDING IN LAND OF VATTINAGULAPALLY, WHIC H WAS GIVEN FOR DEVELOPMENT TO M/S.DAKSHIN SHELTERS PVT. LTD., AND THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO ONE OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS. BEING ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE PARTIES TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, IT CANNO T BE SAID THAT THERE WAS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL RELATING TO ASSESSEE. LD.DR TAKING REFERENCE TO THE NOTINGS IN PG.1 9 TO 33 AS WELL AS THE STATEMENTS RECORDED FROM SHRI APOORVA D.SHAH SUDHIR KUMAR D.SHAH HUF (GROUP CASES) :- 11 -: AND SHRI SUNIL D.SHAH SUBMITTED THAT, IT IS CLEARLY EVID ENT THAT THERE WAS INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, WHICH IS AVAILABLE I N THE SEARCHED PREMISES, BELONGING TO ASSESSEE. HENCE, THER E IS NO MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE THAT THERE ASSESSMENT U/S.153C OF THE ACT WA S INITIATED WITHOUT HAVING THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL. 6.4. LD.DR REFERRING TO PG.1 OF THE PAPER BOOK, SUBMI TTED THAT THE AO HAD RECORDED THE SATISFACTION IN THE CASE OF SHR I SUDHIR D.SHAH (HUF) AND MERELY BECAUSE OF THE REASON THAT THE DETAILS OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IT IS UNJUSTIFIED TO HOLD THAT THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDIN G ARE INVALID AND HENCE ARGUED THAT THE AO HAS RIGHTLY INIT IATED THE PROCEEDINGS, AND REASONS WERE RECORDED, THEREFORE, A RGUED THAT THE VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENTS REQUIRED TO BE UPHELD. IN THIS CONNECTION, LD.DR RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: I. CIT VS. CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION (NHAVA SHEVA) LTD.,(2015) [64 TAXMANN.COM 34] (SC); II. V.H.YAHIYA VS. DCIT (2015) [56 TAXMANN.COM 169] (KERALA); III. CIT VS. RRJ SECURITIES LTD., (2017) [79 TAXMANN.COM 115] (SC); IV. CO-ORDINATE BENCH DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF BHARAT GINNING & PRESSING FACTORY VS. ITO (2013) [32 TAXMANN.COM 322) [AHMEDABAD TRIB.]; V. CIT VS. PANCHAJANYAM MANAGEMENT AGENCIES AND SERVICES (2012) [20 TAXMANN.COM 584] (KERALA); SUDHIR KUMAR D.SHAH HUF (GROUP CASES) :- 12 -: 6.5. RESPONDING TO THE ARGUMENT OF LD.DR, LD.COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO PARA 4.2 OF THE ORDER OF LD.CIT( A), SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) UPHELD THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT CHILKOOR LANDS WERE BELONGING TO HUF. HE SUBMITTED THAT CHILKOOR LANDS W ERE NOT BELONGING TO ASSESSEE AND THEY ARE BELONGING TO THE INDIVIDUALS, THEREFORE, RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LD.CIT (A)WITH REGARD TO SALE OF CHILKOOR LANDS IS MISPLACED FOR UP HOLDING THE VALIDITY OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.153C OF THE ACT. THOU GH ALL THE BROTHERS ARE STAYING IN THE SAME HOUSE, THEY ARE DIFFE RENTLY PLACED IN DIFFERENT FLOORS, THUS, THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE PREMISES IS ONE AND THE SAME FOR ALL THE MEMBERS OF F AMILY IS ALSO INCORRECT. SINCE THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF INDIVIDUAL ASSESSEES, THE SATISFACTION REQUIRED TO BE M ADE IN THE CASE OF SEARCHED PERSON FOR TRANSFER OF INCRIMINA TING MATERIAL FOR ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION TO INITIATE THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C OF THE ACT. LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S.132(4) OF TH E ACT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL AS HELD B Y THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF 84 TAXMANN.COM 287 IN PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI-2. VS. B EST INFRASTRUCTURE (INDIA) (P.) LTD., MERELY ON THE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM SHRI APOORVA SHAH, THE PROCEEDINGS U/S .153C OF THE ACT CANNOT BE INITIATED BY ASSUMING THE JURISDICTION INCORRECTLY. THE STATEMENTS RECORDED FROM SHRI APOOR VA SHAH REQUIRED TO BE CONFRONTED WITH THE ASSESSEE TO ELICIT THE FACT WITH REGARD TO THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL. THE LD.AR FU RTHER ARGUED THAT THE LANDS SITUATED AT VATTINAGULAPALLY ARE R ELATED TO THE INDIVIDUALS BUT NOT BELONGED TO THE HUF. SIMILARL Y, SUDHIR KUMAR D.SHAH HUF (GROUP CASES) :- 13 -: LD.AR ARGUED THAT THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE LD.CIT(A) W ITH REGARD TO INITIATION PROCEEDINGS FOR SALE OF CHILUKUR LANDS IS A VALID FINDING AS PER SECTION 114(E) OF THE INDIAN EVI DENCE ACT. 6.6. LD.AR FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE AO OF THE SEARCHED P ERSON HAS NOT RECORDED THE REASONS TO HOLD THAT THE MATERIAL FOU ND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN CASE OF SEARCHED PERS ON BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE. ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION WITHOUT HAVING RECORDED THE REASONS WAS CONSIDERED BY THE HO N'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHE TTYS PHARMACEUTICALS & BIOLOGICALS LTD., (2015) 57 TAXMANN .COM 282) (ANDHRA PRADESH) AND THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONA L HIGH COURT HELD THAT RECORDING SATISFACTION OF THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON IS THE PRE-CONDITION FOR ASSUMING JU RISDICTION U/S.153C OF THE ACT. REFERRING TO PG.116 OF THE PAPER BOOK, LD.AR ARGUED THAT THE HON'BLE AP HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT-III VS. SRI RAO SUBBA RAO (HUF) IN ITTA NO.254 OF 2014, DT.15-04-2014 UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ITAT AND DECID ED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE FOR NOT RECORDING THE S ATISFACTION IN THE CASE OF SEARCHED PERSON. 6.7. THEREFORE, ARGUED THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THERE WAS NO SATISFACTION RECORDED IN THE CA SE OF SEARCHED PERSONS, HENCE AO HAD INCORRECTLY ASSUMED TH E JURISDICTION, THEREFORE REQUESTED TO QUASH THE NOTICE ISS UED U/S.153C OF THE ACT AND CANCEL THE ORDERS OF THE LOWE R AUTHORITIES. SUDHIR KUMAR D.SHAH HUF (GROUP CASES) :- 14 -: 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT NO SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED BY THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. THE DEPARTMENT DID NOT PLACE ANY EVID ENCE TO CONTROVERT THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US, THE AO HAS RECORDED THE SATI SFACTION IN ASSESSEES CASE. WHILE HANDING OVER OR TRANSFERRI NG THE SEIZED MATERIAL TO THE AO HAVING JURISDICTION OF SUCH OTHER PERSON IT IS MANDATORY OBLIGATION OF THE AO OF THE SEARC HED PERSON TO RECORD THE REASONS AND SATISFACTION, SINCE, THE ACT PRESUMES THAT THE MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SE ARCH BELONGS TO THE PERSON WHO IS SEARCHED. THOUGH THE SEA RCH U/S.132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED IN INDIVIDUAL CASES, THE ASSESSMENTS RE-OPENED PERTAINS TO HUF WHO IS DIFFERE NT PERSON IN THE EYE OF INCOME TAX LAW. THE PRESUMPTION I S AVAILABLE FOR THE SEARCHED PERSON U/S.292C OR 132 OF THE ACT THAT THE MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH BELO NGED TO THE SEARCHED PERSON. THEREFORE, IT IS NECESSARY TO G IVE A FINDING WITH REGARD TO ANY OTHER MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND DOES NOT STATED TO BE BELONG TO THE SEARCHED PERSON PERTAINS TO WHOM. IN THE INSTANT CASE, TH E SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF INDIVIDUAL AND TH E DEPARTMENT IS OF THE VIEW THAT SOME MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WAS RELATED TO ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, TH E AO OF SEARCHED PERSON DID NOT RECORD HIS SATISFACTION. UNLES S THE AO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE MATERIAL DOES NOT BELONGI NG TO THE SEARCHED PERSON, THE SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS BELON GING TO THE ASSESSEE TO ASSUME JURISDICTION AGAINST THE ASSES SEE TO INITIATE THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.153C OF THE ACT. THE CO-OR DINATE SUDHIR KUMAR D.SHAH HUF (GROUP CASES) :- 15 -: BENCH OF ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM HAS CONSIDERED THE JUDGEMENTS HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS. SHETTYS PHARMACEUTICALS & BIOLOGICALS LTD., (2 015) (57 TAXMANN.COM 282) (ANDHRA PRADESH) AND THE CASE OF CI T-III VS. SRI RAO SUBBA RAO (HUF) IN ITTA NO.254 OF 2014, DT.15- 04-2014 AND HELD THAT THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION WI THOUT HAVING RECORDED THE REASONS IN THE CASE OF SEARCHED PERSON IS INVALID IN SRI PADMAVATHI VENKATESWARA CONSTRUCTIONS IN ITA NO.47/VIZ/2019 DATED 26-06-2019. FOR THE SAKE OF CLAR ITY AND CONVENIENCE WE, REPRODUCE THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ORD ER OF THE TRIBUNAL AS UNDER: 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE AO HAS NOT RECORDED SATISFACTION IN THE CASE OF THE SEARCH ED PERSON FOR TRANSFERRING THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL TO THE AO OF THE ASSESSE E. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT, IN THE REMAND REPORT ALSO, T HE AO MENTIONED REGARDING RECORDING OF SATISFACTION IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT NO MENTION WAS MADE IN RESPECT OF THE SATISFACTION REC ORDED IN THE CASE OF SEARCHED PERSON I.E. R.VENKATRAMAIAH. THE DEPARTME NT ALSO DID NOT PLACE ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED IN THE CASE OF SEARCHED PERSON, R.VENKTRAMAIAH, WHILE TRANSFERRING THE INCR IMINATING MATERIAL. AS OBSERVED FROM THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.24/2015 DATED 31 .12.2015 WHICH IS PLACED IN PAGE NO.9B OF THE PAPER BOOK , THE CBDT H AS GIVEN GUIDELINES TO ALL THE AOS TO RECORD SATISFACTION EVEN IF THE AO OF TH E SEARCHED PERSON AND THE OTHER PERSON IS ONE AND THE SAME. FOR THE SAKE OF C LARITY AND CONVENIENCE, WE EXTRACT PARA NO.4 AND 5 OF THE CIRCULAR WHICH READS AS UNDER : 4. THE GUIDELINES OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AS REFERRED TO IN PARA 2 ABOVE, WITH REGARD TO RECORDING OF SATISFACT ION NOTE, MAY BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF ALL FOR STRICT COMPLIANCE. IT IS FURTHER CLARIFIED THAT EVEN IF THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AND THE OTHER PERSON IS ONE AND THE SAME, THEN ALSO HE IS REQUIRED TO RECORD HI S SATISFACTION AS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE COURTS. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, FILING OF APPEALS ON THE I SSUE OF RECORDING OF SATISFACTION NOTE SHOULD ALSO BE DECIDED IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE SUDHIR KUMAR D.SHAH HUF (GROUP CASES) :- 16 -: JUDGEMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE BOARD HEREBY DIRECTS T HAT PENDING LITIGATION WITH REGARD TO RECORDING OF SATISFACTION NOTE UNDER SECTION 158BD/153C SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN / NOT PRESSED IF IT DOES NOT MEET THE GUIDELINES LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT. 9.1. HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS. SHETTYS PHARMACEUTICALS & BIOLOGICALS LTD. SUPRA HELD THAT RECORDING OF SATISFACTION BY BOTH THE AOS IS A PRE CONDITION FOR INVOKING JUR ISDICTION U/S 153C OF THE ACT. FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY AND CONVENIENCE WE EX TRACT PARA NO. 5 TO 7 OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WHICH READS AS UN DER: 5. THE ARGUMENT APPARENTLY IS VERY ATTRACTIVE, BUT THE LAW IS OTHERWISE AND THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL HAS CORRECTLY AP PLIED. WE THEREFORE APPROPRIATELY SET OUT SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. '153C. ASSESSMENT OF INCOME OF ANY OTHER PERSON. ( 1) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IX SECTION 139, SECTION 147, SECTION 148, SECTION 149, SECTION 151 AND SECTION 1 53, WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLER)' OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BO OKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED BELONGS OR BEL ONG TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 153K THEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON AND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROCEED AGAINST EACH SUCH OTHER PERSO N AND ISSUE NOTICE AND ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME OF THE OTH ER PERSON IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A, IF, THAT ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT THE BOOKS OF AC COUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED HAVE A BEARING ON THE DETERMINATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF SUCH OTHER PERSON FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR - OR YEARS REFERRED TO IN SUB- SECTION (1) OF SECTION 153A (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) 6. IT IS THEREFORE CLEAR THAT FIRSTLY SATISFACTION HAS TO BE RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO CONDUCTED SEARCH, THAT ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOO KS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED BELONGS OR BELONG TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THIRD PA RTY ON RECEIPT OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR DOCUMENT BE ING HANDED OVER TO HIM SHALL RECORD HIS OWN SATISFACTION AFTER EXAMINI NG THE SAME INDEPENDENTLY WITHOUT BEING INFLUENCED BY THE SATIS FACTION OF THE SEIZING OFFICER. IN OTHER WORDS IT IS NOT AN AUTOMATIC ACTI ON. WE FIND SATISFACTION OF TWO OFFICERS IS MISSING. IN THIS CONNECTION WE S ET OUT THE TEXT OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS: SUDHIR KUMAR D.SHAH HUF (GROUP CASES) :- 17 -: A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S. 132 WAS CARRIE D OUT IN THE GROUP EASE OF DR. T. YADHAIAH GOUD AND OTHERS ON 25 .3.2010. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION DOCUMENTS BEL ONGING TO SHETTY PHARMACEUTICALS & BIOLOGICAL LTD., HAS BEEN SEIZED. HENCE IT IS CONSIDERED TO INITIATE PROCEEDI NGS U/S. 153C OF THE I.T. ACT.' 7. THE AFORESAID SECTION MANDATES RECORDING OF SATI SFACTION 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 THE S AME ASSESSING OFFICER IS INVOLVED IN THE MATTER. THIS FACT DOES NOT DISPE NSE 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 & KING EMP EROR). WE THINK THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL HAS CORRECTLY FOLLOWED THE PRI NCIPLE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY ELEMENT OF LAW TO BE DECIDED. 9.2. SIMILAR ISSUE HAS COME UP BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SRI SESHASAI TOWNSHIP P.LTD. VS. ACIT IN I.T.A. NO.301 & 302/VIZ/2015 DATED 11.01.2019, WHEREIN THE COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT, V ISAKHAPATNAM HAS TAKEN THE SIMILAR VIEW. FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY AND CONV ENIENCE WE EXTRACT RELEVANT PART OF THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL WHICH READS AS U NDER: 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. AS PER THE INFORMATION PLACED IN THE PAP ER BOOK, THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED FOR SUPPLY OF REASONS AND SATISFACTIO N OF THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AND THE AO HAS REPLIED VIDE LETTER DATED 23.11.2017, STATING THAT THE AO OF THE SAI TEJA HOUSING & ESTA TES HAS RECORDED THE SATISFACTION THAT THERE WERE DOCUMENTS FOUND / IMPO UNDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RESP ONSE TO QUESTION NO. 2 AND 3 RELATING TO PROVIDING THE COPIES OF THE S ATISFACTION RECORDED BY THE AO OF SAI TEJA HOUSING & ESTATES FOR INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C OF THE ACT, IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE STATIN G THAT THE QUERY IS SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE EARLIER QUERY AND ENCLOSED A NNEXURE A, COPY OF THE ORDER SHEET OF THE SRI SESHASAI TOWNSHIP PVT. L TD., RELATING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO DID NOT SUPPLY THE SATISFACTION NO TE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON, I.E. SAI TEJA HOUSI NG & ESTATES LTD.. AS THE ORDER SHEET PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSEE BUT NOT PE RTAINING TO THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON HAS NOT RECORDED A SEPARATE SATISFACTION FOR TRANSFER O F THE MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND THE DEPARTMENT DID NOT PLACE ANY MATERIAL TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE AO OF THE SEARCHE D PERSON HAS RECORDED SEPARATE SATISFACTION FOR TRANSFERRING THE MATERIAL TO THE AO OF SUDHIR KUMAR D.SHAH HUF (GROUP CASES) :- 18 -: THE ASSESSEE AND TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C. THE LD.DR CONTENDED THAT IF THE AOS OF BOTH THE SEARCHED PERSON AND THE ASSESSEE ARE ONE AND THE SAME NO SEPARATE SATISFACTION IS REQUIRED T O BE RECODED AND RELIED ON THE DECISION HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF INSTRONICS LTD AND GANAPATI FINCAP SERVICES PVT. LTD. IN THE CASE OF INSTRONICS LTD THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI RESTORED THE MATTER BAC K TO THE FILE OF THE ITAT SINCE THERE IS NO DISCUSSION ON WHETHER THE DO CUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THE ITATS ORDER IN FACT INCRIMINATING AND THE A O OF THE SEARCHED PERSON HAS RECORDED THE SATISFACTION THAT THE SEIZ ED DOCUMENTS BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF GANAPATI FINCAP SERVICES PVT. LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA) IS AGAINST THE WRIT PETITION AND THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES C ASE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE, THEREFORE, THE CASE LAWS RELIED UP ON BY THE LD.DR ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE ASSESSEES CASE. 11. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION SECTION 292C OF THE ACT PLACES PRESUMPTION THAT THE MATERIAL FOUND DURI NG THE COURSE OF SEARCH BELONGS TO THE SEARCHED PERSON AND THE CONTE NTS OF SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS ARE TRUE. SO IT IS THE OBLIGATION OF THE AO AS WELL AS THE SEARCHED PERSON TO PROVE THAT THE IN CRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN FACT DOES NOT BELONG TO THE SEARCHED PERSON, BUT BELONGED TO THE OTHER PERSON. THEREFORE, UNLESS THERE IS SATISFACTION RECORDED WITH VALID REASONS I T CANNOT BE SIMPLY PRESUMED THAT THE SEIZED MATERIAL DOES NOT BELONG T O THE SEARCHED PERSON, BUT IN FACT BELONGED TO THE OTHER PERSON. THEREFORE, SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON IS MANDATORY REQUIREMENT TO TRANSFER THE RECORDS AND TO HOLD THA T THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND IN THE PREMISES OF THE SEARCHED PER SON IN FACT BELONGED TO SUCH OTHER PERSON. 12. SIMILAR VIEW IS EXPRESSED BY THE COORDINATE BEN CH OF ITAT, HYDERABAD IN THE CASE OF SHRI SRINIVAS BABU, HYDER ABAD VS. ACIT SUPRA RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. FOR READY REFERENCE, W E EXTRACT PARA NO.6 OF THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF SHRI SRINIVAS BABU CITED SUPRA. 6. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND IN T HE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN LINE W ITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE APEX COURT AND THE BINDING CIRCULAR ISSUED B Y THE CBDT(BINDING UPON THE REVENUE), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER S.153C OF THE ACT FOR T HESE TWO YEARS DESERVE TO BE QUASHED IN AS MUCH AS THE CONCERNED A SSESSING OFFICER HAS ADMITTEDLY NOT RECORDED ANY SATISFACTIO N BEFORE FORWARDING THE FILES TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN WH OSE CHARGE, THE SUDHIR KUMAR D.SHAH HUF (GROUP CASES) :- 19 -: ASSESSEE HEREIN IS ASSESSED. IN OTHER WORDS, THE AS SESSMENTS MADE UNDER S.153C OF THE ACT ARE HEREBY QUASHED. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE OTHER GROUNDS URGED BY THE REVENUE AS W ELL AS THE ASSESSEE HAVE NO LEGS STAND, SINCE THE ASSESSMENTS FOR BOTH THE YEARS ARE QUASHED. THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF COORDIN ATE BENCH OF ITAT, DELHI IN THE CASE OF NARSI CREATIONS VS.DEPUT Y COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (2016) 70 TAXMANN.COM 156, WHEREIN, THE COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT HELD THAT THE SATISFACTION OF THE AO OF SEARCHED PERSON HAS TO RECORD SATISFACTION EVEN IF HE IS ALSO THE AO OF THE OTHER PERSON U/S 153C. 13. SIMILAR ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE COORDINATE B ENCH OF ITAT AHMEDABAD IN PARSHWA CORPORATION. V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE2, BARODA [2017] 88 TAXMA NN.COM 43 (AHMEDABAD - TRIB.) AND HELD THAT 18. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR NO SATISFACTION IS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF PERSON SEARCHED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF ASSESSEE DID NOT RECORD ANY SATISFACTION PRIOR TO ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 153C. THE SO-CALLED SATISFAC TION RECORDED IN THE NOTICE U/S 153C IS TOTALLY VAGUE. IT HAS NOT SP ECIFIED WHICH VALUABLE ARTICLES/THINGS/BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS/DOCUMENT S WERE FOUND FROM SHRI RAMESHBHAI B. SHAH WHICH BELONGS TO THE A SSESSEE. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MENT IONED THAT IN THE LAPTOP OF SHRI RAMESHBHAI B. SHAH THE DATA PERT AINING TO THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND AND ON THAT BASIS NOTICES U/S 1 53C HAVE BEEN ISSUED. HOWEVER, IN THE NOTICE U/S 153C, WHERE IN THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECORDED THE SATISFACTION FOR ISSUE OF THE NOTICE, THERE IS NO MENTION ABOUT SUCH LAPTOP OR THE ALLEGED DATA IN SUCH LAPTOP WHICH IS CLAIMED TO BE BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE HAVE NO HESITATI ON TO HOLD THAT THE BASIC CONDITION FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S153C HAS NOT BEEN SATISFIED. 14. THE DEPARTMENTAL CIRCULAR DATED 31.12.2015 ALS O DIRECTED THE AO TO RECORD THE SATISFACTION, EVEN IF THE AO OF TH E SEARCHED PERSON AND THE OTHER PERSON IS ONE AND THE SAME AND THE CIRCUL AR IS BINDING ON THE ASSESSING OFFICERS. NON RECORDING OF SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON RENDERS THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS U/S 153C AS INVALID. THIS VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE H IGH COURT OF DELHI IN PEPSI FOODS (P.) LTD.V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME-TAX, SUDHIR KUMAR D.SHAH HUF (GROUP CASES) :- 20 -: [2014] 52 TAXMANN.COM 220 (DELHI).HONBLE HIGH COUR T OF DELHI HELD AS UNDER: 6. ON A PLAIN READING OF SECTION 153C, IT IS EVIDE NT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON MUST BE 'S ATISFIED' THAT INTER ALIA ANY DOCUMENT SEIZED OR REQUISITIONE D 'BELONGS TO' A PERSON OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSON. IT IS ONLY T HEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON CAN HANDOV ER SUCH DOCUMENT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTI ON OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON (OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSON). FURT HERMORE, IT IS ONLY AFTER SUCH HANDING OVER THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER OF SUCH OTHER PERSON CAN ISSUE A NOTICE TO THAT PERSON AND ASSESS OR RE- ASSESS HIS INCOME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A. THEREFORE, BEFORE A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C CAN BE ISSUED TWO STEPS HAVE TO BE TAKEN. THE FIRST STEP IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE PERSON WHO IS SEARCHED MUST ARRIVE A T A CLEAR SATISFACTION THAT A DOCUMENT SEIZED FROM HIM DOES N OT BELONG TO HIM BUT TO SOME OTHER PERSON. THE SECOND STEP IS - AFTER SUCH SATISFACTION IS ARRIVED AT - THAT THE DOCUMENT IS H ANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE PERSON TO WHOM THE SAID DO CUMENT 'BELONGS'. IN THE PRESENT CASES IT HAS BEEN URGED O N BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER THAT THE FIRST STEP ITSELF HAS NOT BEEN FULFILLED. FOR THIS PURPOSE IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO EXAMINE THE PROVIS IONS OF PRESUMPTIONS AS INDICATED ABOVE. SECTION 132(4A)(I) CLEARLY STIPULATES THAT WHEN INTER ALIA ANY DOCUMENT IS FOU ND IN THE POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF ANY PERSON IN THE COURSE O F A SEARCH IT MAY BE PRESUMED THAT SUCH DOCUMENT BELONGS TO SUCH PERSON. IT IS SIMILARLY PROVIDED IN SECTION 292C(1)(I). IN OTHER WORDS, WHENEVER A DOCUMENT IS FOUND FROM A PERSON WHO IS BEING SEAR CHED THE NORMAL PRESUMPTION IS THAT THE SAID DOCUMENT BELONG S TO THAT PERSON. IT IS FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REBUT TH AT PRESUMPTION AND COME TO A CONCLUSION OR 'SATISFACTION' THAT THE DOCUMENT IN FACT BELONGS TO SOMEBODY ELSE. THERE MUST BE SOME C OGENT MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFOR E HE/SHE ARRIVES AT THE SATISFACTION THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENT DOES N OT BELONG TO THE SEARCHED PERSON BUT TO SOMEBODY ELSE. SURMISE A ND CONJECTURE CANNOT TAKE THE PLACE OF 'SATISFACTION'. ------- 11. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ABOVE SATISFACTION NOTE THA T APART FROM SAYING THAT THE DOCUMENTS BELONGED TO THE PETITIONE R AND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT IT IS A FIT CAS E FOR ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C, THERE IS NOTHING WHICH W OULD INDICATE AS TO HOW THE PRESUMPTIONS WHICH ARE TO BE NORMALLY RAISED AS INDICATED ABOVE, HAVE BEEN REBUTTED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. SUDHIR KUMAR D.SHAH HUF (GROUP CASES) :- 21 -: MERE USE OR MENTION OF THE WORD 'SATISFACTION' OR T HE WORDS 'I AM SATISFIED' IN THE ORDER OR THE NOTE WOULD NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF THE CONCEPT OF SATISFACTION AS USED IN SECTION 1 53C OF THE SAID ACT. THE SATISFACTION NOTE ITSELF MUST DISPLAY THE REASONS OR BASIS FOR THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF TH E SEARCHED PERSON IS SATISFIED THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS BELON G TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSON. WE ARE AFRAID, THAT GOING THROUGH THE CONTENTS OF THE SATISFACTION NOTE, WE ARE UNABL E TO DISCERN ANY 'SATISFACTION' OF THE KIND REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 1 53C OF THE SAID ACT. 12. THIS BEING THE POSITION THE VERY FIRST STEP PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE UNDER SECTION153C OF THE SAID ACT HAS N OT BEEN FULFILLED. INASMUCH AS THIS CONDITION PRECEDENT HAS NOT BEEN MET, THE NOTICES UNDER SECTION 153C ARE LIABLE TO BE QUA SHED. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. HONBLE SUPREME COURT DISMISSED THE SLP FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT RULING THAT BEFORE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C, ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQ UIRED TO ARRIVE AT A CONCLUSIVE SATISFACTION THAT DOCUMENTS BELONGS TO A PERSON OTHER THAN SEARCHED PERSON IN[2018] 89 TAXMANN.COM 10 (SC). THEREFORE, THE COURTS HELD THAT THE SATISFACTION NOT ONLY SHOULD B E RECORDED BUT ALSO SHOULD BE WRITTEN IN DETAIL WITH VALID REASONS AND IT SHOULD NOT BE VAGUE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE TH AT THE DEPARTMENT COULD NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PER SON HAS RECORDED SATISFACTION BEFORE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE DECISI ONS HONBLE COURTS CITED SUPRA AND AS PER THE DISCUSSION IN PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS, WE HOLD THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153C IS UNSUSTAINABLE. 9.3. SINCE THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL, RESPECTFULLY FO LLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND THE VIEW T AKEN BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE CITED SUPRA, WE HOLD THAT THE ISSUE OF NOT ICE U/S 153C WITHOUT RECORDING THE REASONS IN THE CASE OF SEARCHED PERSO N RENDERS THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153C AS INVALID. ACCORDINGLY, WE QUASH THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153C AND THE CANCEL THE CONSEQUENT ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153C. SINCE WE HAVE QUASHED THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153C AN D CANCELLED THE CONSEQUENT ASSESSMENT, WE CONSIDER IT IS NOT NECESS ARY TO ADJUDICATE THE REVENUES APPEAL WHICH IS ON QUANTUM OF ADDITIONS A ND THE REMAINING GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS AP PEAL. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND THE REVENUE S APPEAL IS DISMISSED SUDHIR KUMAR D.SHAH HUF (GROUP CASES) :- 22 -: 7.1. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THERE I S NO SATISFACTION RECORDED BY THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON . NO MATERIAL WAS PLACED BEFORE US TO SHOW THAT THE SATISFAC TION WAS RECORDED BY THE AO OF SEARCHED PERSON BEFORE TRA NSFER OF THE MATERIAL TO THE OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SU CH OTHER PERSON IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF HON'BLE JURI SDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURTS SUPRA AND THE DECISI ON OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION WITHOUT RECORDING TH E REASONS IN THE CASE OF SEARCHED PERSON IS INVALID. ACCORDINGLY, WE QUASH THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S.153C OF THE ACT AND CAN CEL THE ASSESSMENTS FRAMED U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 153C OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEES APPEALS ON THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 8. SINCE, WE HAVE ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND OF NON-RECORDING OF REASONS, WE CONSIDER IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THESE APPEALS. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS IN ITA NOS.1871/HYD/13, 1872/HYD/13, 1873/HYD/13, 1874/HYD/13, 1875/HYD/13 & 1876/HYD/13 ARE ALLOWED. ITA NO.1877/HYD/2013 (AY.2008-09): 10. IN THIS CASE, THE AO MADE REGULAR ASSESSMENT U/S.1 43(3) OF THE ACT. IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO MAD E AN ADDITION OF RS.1,60,000/- RELATING TO AGRICULTURAL I NCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE AO FOUND DURING TH E COURSE SUDHIR KUMAR D.SHAH HUF (GROUP CASES) :- 23 -: OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH OTHER BROTHERS ARE HAVING LANDS SITUATED AT VATTINAGULAPALLY V ILLAGE AND THE LANDS WERE VACANT LANDS. THE LAND REVENUE REC ORDS ALSO SHOWS THAT SUCH LANDS WERE VACANT LANDS AND NO AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES WERE CARRIED OUT. THE AO FURTHE R OBSERVED THAT MAJORITY OF THE LANDS WERE TRANSFERRED B Y THE ASSESSEE TO M/S.DAKSHIN SHELTERS PVT. LTD., FOR THE PURP OSE OF DEVELOPMENT. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO AGRICULTURAL INCO ME DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SAID LANDS. ACCORDIN GLY, MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.1,60,000/-, TREATING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 11. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO, ASSESSEE WENT ON APPEA L BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDI TION MADE BY THE AO. AGAINST WHICH, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRE D AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 12. DURING THE APPEAL HEARING, THE LD.AR ARGUED THAT F ROM THE AYS.1983-84 TO 2001-02, ASSESSEE CARRIED ON AGRI CULTURAL ACTIVITY AND DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME, WHICH WAS ALSO ACCEPTED BY THE AO. THEREFORE, MERELY FOR NOT CARRYI NG OUT ANY AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY OR KEEPING THE LANDS VACANT FOR SOME TIME, THE INCOME DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SAID LAND CANNOT BE TREATED AS NON-AGRICULTURAL INCOME. IN THIS CONNEC TION, THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF 331 ITR 59. REFERRING TO PGS.39 TO 41 OF THE PAPER BOOK LD.AR ARGUED THAT THE LANDS SITUATED AT VATTINAGULAPALLY VILLAGE WERE ACQUIRED BY THE GOVERNME NT AND AS PER THE ACQUISITION ORDER, THE LANDS WERE CHARACTERI ZED AS SUDHIR KUMAR D.SHAH HUF (GROUP CASES) :- 24 -: AGRICULTURAL LANDS FOR WHICH GOVERNMENT ALSO PAID THE COMPENSATION, THEREFORE, ARGUED THAT THE AUTHORITIES ERRE D IN TREATING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS NON-AGRICULTURAL IN COME AND REQUESTED TO ALLOW THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. 13. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.AR HA D ARGUED THAT THE LANDS SITUATED AT VATTINAGULAPALLY VILLA GE, DOES NOT BELONG TO HUF, AND WAS RECEIVED BY INDIVIDUAL BY WAY OF GIFT FROM HIS MOTHER. SINCE THE LANDS WERE NOT TRANSFE RRED TO THE HOTCHPOTCH OF HUF, THE INCOME THEREON SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE HUF. LD.DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE HON'BLE ITAT IN ITS ORDER IN THE CASE OF M/S.DAKS HIN SHELTERS PVT. LTD., VS. DCIT, IN ITA NOS.1983 TO 1985/HYD/2011, DT.04-05-2012 GIVEN FINDING THAT THE SA ID LANDS WERE ALREADY HANDED OVER TO THE DEVELOPER AND TH E BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE PROJECT WAS ALREADY COMMENCED AND THE DEVELOPER HAD INCURRED THE COST OF RS.76,42,493/- FO R DEVELOPMENT OF LANDS SITUATED AT VATTINAGULAPALLY VILLA GE. THUS, HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO CASE OF CULTIVATING THE LAND AND THE LANDS WERE MOUNTAINOUS LANDS, WHERE THERE IS N O POSSIBILITY OF CULTIVATION. THEREFORE, HE ARGUED THA T THE AO RIGHTLY TREATED THE SAME AS NON-AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND TAXED UNDER INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND REQUESTED TO UP HOLD THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 14. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, ASSES SEE STATED BEFORE US THAT THE LANDS SITUATED AT VATTINAGULAPALLY V ILLAGE DOES NOT BELONG TO HUF AND BELONGED TO INDIVIDUAL AND SUDHIR KUMAR D.SHAH HUF (GROUP CASES) :- 25 -: ACQUIRED BY INHERITANCE THROUGH GIFT DEED FROM HIS MOTH ER. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO CASE FOR CONSIDERING THE SAME AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE HUF. FURTHER IT IS SEEN FROM THE ORDERS OF ITAT THAT THE SAID LANDS WERE GIVEN TO M/S.DAKSHIN SHELTERS PVT. LTD., FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT AND THE ASSESSEE CAME TO KNOW THAT THE DEVELOPER ALREADY STARTED REAL ESTATE PROJECT AND INCURR ED SUBSTANTIAL EXPENDITURE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE SAME. T HE LANDS WERE STATED TO BE MOUNTAINOUS LANDS. THIS FACT FIN DING WAS GIVEN BY THE ITAT IN ITS ORDER (SUPRA). EXCEPT THE LAND REVENUE AUTHORITIES, NO OTHER EVIDENCE BROUGHT BY THE A SSESSEE FOR ESTABLISHING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ACCORDINGLY, WE, DISMISS THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH OCTOBER,2019 SD/- SD/- (V. DURGA RAO) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER HYDERABAD, DATED: 25-10-2019 TNMM SUDHIR KUMAR D.SHAH HUF (GROUP CASES) :- 26 -: COPY TO : 1. SRI SUDHIR KUMAR D.SHAH HUF, 4-3-345, 1 ST FLOOR, RBH LANE, KOTI,HYDERABAD. 2.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, HYDERABAD. 3. CIT(APPEALS)-1, HYDERABAD. 4. THE CIT(CENTRAL), HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE.