Smt. Uma Prasad, Bangalore V. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 323/BANG/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 32321114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 25-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G R REDDY CITIDR
• Assessee Lawyers: CHANDRASHEKAR
• Keywords: Document seized
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.323 & 324/BANG/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06 & 2006-07 SMT. UMA PRASAD, # 810, 8 TH MAIN, 2 ND CROSS, H.R.B.R. LAYOUT, BANGALORE 560 043. PAN : AHVPP 5216B VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G.R. REDDY, CIT-I(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 27.07.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.07.2015 O R D E R PER N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAIN ST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 21.1.2011 OF THE CIT(APPEALS), MYSORE R ELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 & 2006-07. ITA NOS.323 & 324/BANG/2011 PAGE 2 OF 12 2. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER THE AFORESAID APPEALS ARISE ARE AS FOLLOWS. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. THERE WAS A SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION CONDUCTED U/S. 132 OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF SKYLINE GROUP OF CASES ON 28.2.2008. IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH, A DOC UMENT MARKED EXHIBIT SCHL/A/6 PAGES 60 TO 65 WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. THE DOCUMENT SO SEIZED WAS AN AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 18.4.2004 RELATING T O PROPERTY BEING DRY LAND BEARING SY.NO.239 MEASURING 4 ACRES 38 GUNTAS AT KENGERI VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK [HEREINAFTER R EFERRED TO AS THE PROPERTY]. UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, SMT. NANJAMMA, S HRI KUMAR, SHRI SANJEEVA AND SMT. ANAMMA; THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERT Y AGREED TO SELL THE PROPERTY TO THE ASSESSEE HEREIN FOR A SALE CONSIDER ATION OF RS.75 LAKHS. A SUM OF RS.25 LAKHS HAD BEEN PAID BY WAY OF CASH AT THE TIME OF SIGNING OF AGREEMENT AND REMAINING SUM OF RS.50 LAKHS WAS AGRE ED TO BE PAID WITHIN 15 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF AGREEMENT AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION OF SALE DEED. IT IS VERY PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT THIS AG REEMENT FOR SALE HAS BEEN SIGNED ONLY BY THE VENDOR AND NOT BY THE ASSESSEE, WHO IS STATED TO BE THE PURCHASER IN THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSING THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS SKYLINE GROUP OF CASES WAS ONE AND THE SAME PERSON. HE REC ORDED THE SATISFACTION NOTE IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE FOR PROCE EDING TO MAKE AN ASSESSMENT US/. 153C OF THE ACT AS FOLLOWS:- ITA NOS.323 & 324/BANG/2011 PAGE 3 OF 12 SATISFACTION NOTE FOR INITIATING ACTION U/S. 153C ACTION U/S. 132 WAS CONDUCTED IN THE PREMISES OF S KYLINE GROUP OF CASES ON 28/02/2008 BASED ON THE AUTHORIZA TION ISSUED BY THE ADDL. DIT (INV)-II, BANGALORE VIDE WARRANT N O. DATED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN THE CASE OF SKYLINE GROUP OF COMPANIES AND OTHERS, THE FOLLOWING BOOKS/DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED U/S. 132. EXHIBIT I.D PAGE NO.S SCHL/A/6 PAGE NO.60 TO 65 ON A SCRUTINY OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENT SEIZED IT IS S EEN THAT THE ABOVE MATERIALS BELONGS TO YOU. I AM SATISFIED THAT ACTION U/S 153C HAS TO BE INITIATED IN THE CASE OF SMT. UMA PR ASAD, FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06. HENCE ISSUE NOTICE U/S. 153C. DT. 08/05/2009 4. THE AO THEREAFTER GATHERED INFORMATION THAT THE SALE DEED OF THE PROPERTY WAS EXECUTED BY THE VENDORS IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE ON 23.6.2005 AND THE VALUE REFLECTED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED WAS ONLY A SUM OF RS.43,80,000. THE AO WAS THEREFORE OF THE V IEW THAT A SUM OF RS.25 LAKHS WHICH WAS PAID BY CASH AS FOUND RECORDE D IN THE AGREEMENT OF SALE SEIZED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH HAD TO BE ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH FOR AY 2005-06. THE AO WAS ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT A S FAR AS AY 2006-07 IS CONCERNED, THE SUM OF RS.6,20,000 HAD TO BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH, WHICH IS ARRIVED AT IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:- ITA NOS.323 & 324/BANG/2011 PAGE 4 OF 12 SALE CONSIDERATION AS PER AGREEMENT FOR SALE 75,00 ,000 LESS: VALUE AS PER REGD. SALE DEED 43,80,000 31,20,000 LESS: CASH PAID AS PER AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 18.4.2004 25,00,000 CASH PAID AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION OF SALE DEED DATED 23.6.2005 6,20,000 ------------- 5. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WHEN CO NFRONTED WITH THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER DATED 19.11.2009 STATING THAT THE AMOUNT WAS BY MISTAKE OMITTED FROM BEING ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD OFFER THE SAME AS INCOME FO R THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE AO ACCORDINGLY COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT MAKING ADDITION OF RS.25 LAKHS AND RS.6.20 LAKHS FOR AYS 2 005-06 & 2006-07 RESPECTIVELY. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, TH E ASSESSEE FILED APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). 6. BEFORE CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE AO IN ASSUMING JURISDICTION U/S. 153C OF THE ACT. WHE RE THERE IS A SEARCH U/S. 132, IN THE CASE OF SAY X, AND IN THE COURSE OF SUC H SEARCH, MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLES OR THINGS OR B OOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS IS SEIZED, AND THE AO OF THE PERSON WHO W AS SEARCHED, IS SATISFIED THAT THE DOCUMENT OR THING SEIZED BELONGS TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON WHO WAS SEARCHED, THEN THE SEIZED DOCUME NTS OR THINGS SHOULD ITA NOS.323 & 324/BANG/2011 PAGE 5 OF 12 BE HANDED OVER TO THE AO OF THAT OTHER PERSON AND T HAT AO WILL PROCEED AGAINST THAT OTHER PERSON U/S. 153C OF THE ACT. 7. IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS THA T THE CRUCIAL CONDITION FOR ASSUMING JURISDICTION U/S. 153C OF TH E ACT IS THAT THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON SHOULD BE SATISFIED THAT THE DOCUME NT FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH BELONGS TO SOME OTHER PERSON. IT WAS THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) THAT THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE DATED 18.4.2009 WHICH WAS SEIZED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH OF SKYLINE GROUP OF CASES WAS NOT SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN SUCH CIRC UMSTANCES, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, SEIZURE OF AN UNSIGNED DOCUMENT IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH OF A THIRD PARTY, CANNOT BE THE BASIS ON WHICH SATI SFACTION AS REQUIRED U/S. 153C OF THE ACT CAN BE ARRIVED AT FOR ASSUMING JURI SDICTION U/S. 153C. POINTING TO THE SATISFACTION NOTE EXTRACTED IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE BASIS ON WHICH THE AO ARRIVED AT A CONCLUSION THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENT BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PROPER AND THEREFORE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C OF THE A CT SHOULD BE HELD WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND QUASHED. 8. APART FROM THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTE D CASH BOOK BEFORE THE CIT(A) SHOWING THAT THERE WAS AVAILABILI TY OF CASH BALANCE AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FROM WHICH THE ALLEGED CASH PA YMENTS COULD BE EXPLAINED AND THEREFORE NO ADDITION OUGHT TO HAVE B EEN MADE BY THE AO. ITA NOS.323 & 324/BANG/2011 PAGE 6 OF 12 9. BOTH THE AFORESAID CONTENTIONS WERE NOT ACCEPTED BY THE CIT(APPEALS). ON THE ARGUMENT THAT ASSESSEE HAD NO T SIGNED THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE, THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEES SIGNATURE IN THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE WILL NOT UNDERMINE THE VERACITY OF THE DOCUMENT AND THAT IT IS A COMMON PR ACTICE IN THE REAL ESTATE BUSINESS THAT SUCH SALE TRANSACTION ARE PUT IN AN A GREEMENT FOR SALE TO SAFEGUARD THE INTEREST OF THE PURCHASER. IT IS MOR E IN THE NATURE OF RECEIPT AND THEREFORE DOES NOT BEAR THE SIGNATURE OF THE PU RCHASER. ON SUCH REASONING, THE CIT(APPEALS) UPHELD THE ASSUMPTION O F JURISDICTION U/S. 153C OF THE ACT. 10. WITH REGARD TO AVAILABILITY OF CASH BALANCE, TH E CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT IF THE CASH PAYMENTS MADE AND ADDED IN TH E ASSESSMENT ARE REDUCED FROM THE CASH BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, T HEN THERE WOULD BE A NEGATIVE CASH BALANCE IN AY 2008-09. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THEREFORE REJECTED BY THE CIT(A). 11. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE, WHO APART FROM REITERATING THE CONTENTIONS PUT FORT H BEFORE THE CIT(A), ALSO SUBMITTED THAT EVEN WHERE THE AO OF THE PERSON SEAR CHED AND THE ASSESSEE ARE ONE AND THE SAME, SATISFACTION IS REQU IRED TO BE ARRIVED AT FOR ASSUMING JURISDICTION U/S. 153C OF THE ACT. SUCH S ATISFACTION HAS TO BE ITA NOS.323 & 324/BANG/2011 PAGE 7 OF 12 RECORDED BOTH IN THE CASE OF PERSON SEARCHED AND IN THE CASE OF PERSON AGAINST WHOM PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C OF THE ACT ARE I NITIATED. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE DECISIO N OF THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN CIT V. M/S. MECHMEN, ITA NO.44 OF 2011, JUDGMENT DATED 10.7.2015. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE REVENUE HAS NOT PRODUCED TH E SATISFACTION NOTE RECORDED IN THE CASE OF THE PERSO N SEARCHED U/S.132 OF THE ACT. FURTHER RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECIS ION OF ITAT DELHI BENCH IN TANVEER COLLECTIONS P. LTD. V. ACIT, ITA NO.2421/DE L/2014, ORDER DATED 16.1.2015 , WHEREIN THE DELHI TRIBUNAL OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS:- 17. AS REGARDS THE OTHER ARGUMENT OF THE LD. DR THAT SINCE THE AO OF BOTH THE PERSONS SEARCHED AND THE ASSESSEE IS THE SAME PERSON, HENCE THE REQUIREMENT OF RECORDING SATISFAC TION BY THE AO OF THE PERSONS SEARCHED SHOULD BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN FULFILLED WITH THE RECORDING OF SATISFACTION BY THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ARE AGAIN UNABLE TO APPRECIATE THIS CO NTENTION THAT THE COMMONNESS OF THE AO WOULD MAKE NO DIFFERENCE I N SO FAR AS THE RECORDING OF SATISFACTION IN THE CASE OF THE PE RSONS SEARCHED IS CONCERNED. WHAT IS RELEVANT FOR THIS PURPOSE IS NOT THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON ASSESSING BUT HIS POSITION AND THE CAPAC ITY. WHEN THE LAW REQUIRES THE AO OF THE PERSON SEARCHED TO RECOR D THE NECESSARY SATISFACTION, IT IS THE AO HAVING JURISDI CTION OVER THE PERSON SEARCHED WHO IS OBLIGED TO RECORD SUCH SATIS FACTION IN THE CAPACITY OF THAT AO AND THAT TOO IN THE CASE OF THE PERSON SEARCHED. THE MERE FACT THAT THE AO OF THE PERSON S EARCHED AND THE ASSESSEE IS THE SAME PERSON, DOES NOT, IN ANY M ANNER, OBLITERATE THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW NECESSITATING THE RECORDING OF SATISFACTION IN THE CASE OF THE PERSON SEARCHED THA T MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY, ETC., FOUND FROM THE PERSON SEA RCHED BELONGS TO THE OTHER PERSON. WHAT IS CRUCIAL TO NOTE IS C APACITY OF THE AO AND NOT HIS IDENTITY. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT W HEN THE STATUTORY STIPULATION IS FOR RECORDING THE SATISFAC TION BY THE AO OF THE PERSON SEARCHED, THEN, IT CANNOT BE SUBSTITUTED WITH THE SATISFACTION OF THE AO OF THE OTHER PERSON. THIS CONTENTION ALSO FAILS. ITA NOS.323 & 324/BANG/2011 PAGE 8 OF 12 18. AT THIS STAGE, IT IS RELEVANT TO NOTE THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS SUBSTITUTED THE LATTER PART OF SECTION 153C(1) BY T HE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2014 W.E.F. 1.10.2014. THE HITHERTO PAR T OF SUB- SECTION (1) : AND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PRO CEED AGAINST EACH SUCH OTHER PERSON AND ISSUE NOTICE AND ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME OF THE OTHER PERSON .........REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 153A. HAS BEEN SUBSTITUTED AS UNDER : - AND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROCEED AGAINST EACH SUCH OTHER PERSON AND ISSUE NOTICE AND ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME OF THE OTHER PERSON IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A, IF, THAT ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT 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. 19. THE ABOVE SUBSTITUTION HAS THE EFFECT OF NOW M AKING IT MANDATORY FOR THE AO OF THE OTHER PERSON ALSO TO RECORD SATISFACTION THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS , ETC., HAVE A BEARING ON THE DETERMINATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF SUCH OTHER PERSON BEFORE EMBARKING UPON THE EXERCISE OF HIS A SSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, NOW UNDER THE LAW, W.E.F. 1.10.2014 IT HAS BECOME OBLIGATORY NOT ONLY FOR THE AO OF THE PE RSON SEARCHED TO RECORD SATISFACTION BEFORE HANDING OVER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS, ETC., TO THE AO OF THE OTHER PERSON, B UT, SUCH AO OF THE OTHER PERSON IS ALSO REQUIRED TO RECORD SATIS FACTION THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS, ETC. HAVE A BEARING ON THE DETERMINATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF SUCH OTHER PER SON. IN THE PRE- SUBSTITUTION ERA OF THE RELEVANT PART OF SUB-SECTIO N (1) OF SECTION 153C COVERING THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE J URISDICTIONAL CONDITION REMAINS THAT THE SATISFACTION IS REQUIRED TO BE RECORDED BY AND IN THE CASE OF THE PERSON SEARCHED SO AS TO ENABLE THE AO OF THE OTHER PERSON TO START WITH THE PROCEEDINGS FOR MAKING ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT. 20. THE LD. DR CONTENDED THAT RECORDING OF SATISFAC TION BY THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE MOST CAN BE TREATED AS A TECHNICAL MISTAKE AND HENCE SHOULD NOT ECLIPSE THE ASSESSMENT . RELYING ON ITA NOS.323 & 324/BANG/2011 PAGE 9 OF 12 CERTAIN JUDGMENTS, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE TE CHNICALITIES CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO PREVAIL IN THE COURSE OF INDUL GENCE OF JUSTICE. 21. WE AGREE IN PRINCIPLE THAT TECHNICALITIES CANN OT COME IN THE WAY OF DISPENSATION OF JUSTICE. HOWEVER, IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE LACK OF JURISDICTION BY THE AO CANNOT BE PUT UNDER THE CARPET IN THE GUISE OF A TECHNICAL DEFECT. IT G OES WITHOUT SAYING THAT NO ASSESSMENT OR OTHER PROCEEDINGS CAN BE LAWFULLY TAKEN UP AND COMPLETED UNLESS THE CONCERNED AUTHORI TY HAS JURISDICTION TO DO SO. LACK OF JURISDICTION GOES TO THE VERY ROOT OF THE MATTER AND CUTS THE TREE OF ASSESSMENT IF THE F OUNDATION OF JURISDICTION IS MISSING. 13. THE LD. AR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE SATISFACTI ON NOTE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME CANNOT BE THE BASIS TO INITIATE PROCE EDINGS U/S. 153C OF THE ACT. 14. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS). 15. WE HAVE GIVEN A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RI VAL SUBMISSIONS. THE CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR ISSUING NOTICE U/S. 153C IS THAT THE DOCUMENT SEIZED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH OF SKYLINE GROUP OF CASES SHOULD BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WHAT WAS FOUND WAS A PHOTOCOPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE DATED 18.4.2004. PURCHASER HAS NOT SIGNED THIS DOCUMENT. IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH NOBODY WAS EXAMI NED NOR POST-SEARCH INVESTIGATIONS WAS MADE REGARDING THE ABSENCE OF SI GNATURE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS DOCUMENT. IT IS NO DOUBT TRUE THA T IN THE COURSE OF 153C PROCEEDINGS, THE AO DID NOT GIVE ANY EXPLANATION AB OUT THIS DOCUMENT FOR DECIDING THE QUESTION OF ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION . WE SHOULD NOT TAKE ITA NOS.323 & 324/BANG/2011 PAGE 10 OF 12 NOTE OF THE EVENTS THAT OCCURRED SUBSEQUENT TO ASSU MPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S. 153C. THE QUESTION IS AS TO WHETHER ON 8.5.20 09, WHEN PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE U/S. 153C, THER E WAS MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE DOCUMENT FOUND AND SEIZED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH OF SKYLINE GROUP OF CASES BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE DOCUM ENT IN QUESTION IS A PHOTOCOPY OF AGREEMENT FOR SALE DATED 18.4.2004, WH ICH IS SIGNED ONLY BY THE VENDORS AND IN WHICH THE ASSESSEES NAME AS PUR CHASER IS FOUND, BUT THE ASSESSEES SIGNATURE IS NOT FOUND IN THE SAID D OCUMENT. AS WE HAVE ALREADY OBSERVED, THERE HAS BEEN NO POST-SEARCH ENQ UIRIES ON THE AFORESAID DOCUMENT. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FAIL TO SEE AS TO HOW THE AO FORMED AN OPINION THAT THE DOCUMENT FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE. THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST T HE ASSESSEE COMMENCED ON ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 153C ON 8.5.2009. IN THE ORDER U/S. 153C, THERE IS A REFERENCE TO THE AGREEMENT FOR SAL E SEIZED AND THE DIFFERENCE IN VALUE BETWEEN REGISTERED DOCUMENT AND AGREEMENT FOR SALE. THERE IS A REFERENCE TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 18. 11.2004 ISSUED TO ASSESSEE AND REPLY DATED 19.11.09 FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE. THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT WAS PASSED BY THE AO ON 29.12.2009 AND T HERE IS NO REFERENCE TO ANY OTHER DOCUMENT OR STATEMENT IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. EVEN BEFORE US, NO MATERIAL WAS PLACED REGARDING TH E BASIS ON WHICH SATISFACTION NOTE DATED 8.5.2009 WAS RECORDED BY TH E AO. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ASSUMPTION O F JURISDICTION U/S 153C OF THE ACT WAS NOT PROPER AND THEREFORE THE PROCEED INGS FOR BOTH THE ITA NOS.323 & 324/BANG/2011 PAGE 11 OF 12 ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE REQUIRED TO BE QUASHED. WE AL SO DERIVE SUPPORT FOR THE ABOVE CONCLUSION FROM THE DECISION OF THE HONB LE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN VIJAYBHAI N CHANDRANI V. ACIT, 333 ITR 436 (GUJ) , WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE FACT OF A REFERENCE TO THE NAME OF PERSON IN TH E SEIZED DOCUMENT CANNOT BE THE BASIS TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE DOCUMENT BELONGED TO THE SAID PERSON. PROCEEDINGS INITIATED ON THE B ASIS OF SUCH ASSUMPTION U/S 153C WERE HELD TO BE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND Q UASHED BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT. 16. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, NO PROPER SATISFACTION HAD BEEN RECORDED BY T HE AO FOR ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S. 153C OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE THE ORDER U/S. 153C IS HELD TO BE NOT VALID IN LAW AND THE SAME IS HEREBY QUASH ED. 17. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CONCLUSIONS, THE OTHER ARG UMENTS ADDRESSED ON MERITS OF THE CASE ARE NOT TAKEN UP FOR CONSIDERATI ON. 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF JULY, 2015. SD/- SD/- ( ABRAHAM P. GEORGE ) ( N.V. VASU DEVAN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL M EMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 30 TH JULY, 2015. /D S/ ITA NOS.323 & 324/BANG/2011 PAGE 12 OF 12 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENTS 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, BANGALORE.