Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3080 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
2 year(s) 6 month(s) 6 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
19-05-2017
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
D
Next Hearing Date
17-05-2017
Assessment Year
2010-2011
Appeal Filed On
13-11-2014
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JM & SHRI O.P. KANT, AM ITA NOS. 6216 & 6217/DEL/2014 : ASSTT. YEARS : 2009-10 & 2010-11 VICTORY ACCOMMODATION PVT. LTD., 208, GUPTA TOWER, AZADPUR COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, AZADPUR, NEW DELHI-110033 (PAN: AACCV3923C) VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-09, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NOS. 6239 & 6240/DEL/2014 : ASSTT. YEARS : 20 09-10 & 2010-11 ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-09, NEW DELHI VS VICTORY ACCOMMODATION PVT. LTD., 208, GUPTA TOWER, AZADPUR COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, AZADPUR, NEW DELHI-110033 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. RANO JAIN, ADV. , & SH. ASHISH GOYAL, CA REVENUE BY : SH. NAVEEN CHANDRA, CIT (DR) ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM: THE CROSS APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE DEPARTMEN T AND ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE OF LD. CIT(A)-XXXII, NEW DELHI, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009- 10 & 2010-11 RESPECTIVELY. 2. AT THE FIRST INSTANCE WE WILL DEAL WITH THE CROS S APPEALS IN THE CASE OF M/S VICTORY ACCOMMODATION PVT. LTD. FOR THE 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO. 6216/DEL/2014 BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [CIT(A)] IS BAD BOTH IN THE EYE OF LAW AN D ON FACTS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LEAR NED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIR MING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,74,00,000/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 3(I) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LE ARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIR MING THE ABOVE ADDITION REJECTING THE EXPLANATION AND EVIDENCES BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE TO PROV E THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHAREHOLDER A ND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. (II) THAT THE ADDITION HAD BEEN MADE WITHOUT POINTI NG OUT ANY DEFECT OR IRREGULARITY IN THE EVIDENCES FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LEAR NED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIR MING THE SAID ADDITION DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE SAME HA S BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AND EVIDENCES COLLECT ED AT THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT GIVING IT AN OPPOR TUNITY 3 TO REBUT THE SAME IN CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIP LE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LEAR NED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIR MING THE ADDITION DESPITE THE SAME BEING MADE ON THE BAS IS OF STATEMENTS OF SOME PERSON WITHOUT GIVING ASSESSE E AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE IN CLEAR VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 6. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LEAR NED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN ADJUDI CATING THE ISSUE ON MERITS, HAVING ONCE HELD THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER TO BE ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW FOR LACK OF JURI SDICTION. 7. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTE R ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN ITS APPEAL IN ITA NO. 6239/DEL/2014 READ AS UNDER: (1) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE THAT PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE APPLIED IN THIS CASE AND INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C WAS NOT PROPER AND B AD IN LAW. (2) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN L AW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT FOR INITIATING VALID JURISDI CTION U/S 153C, EVEN IF THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AND THE AO OF SUCH OTHER PERSON IS SAME, IT IS MANDATORY THAT HE HAS TO FIRST RECO RD SATISFACTION NOTE IN THE FILE OF THE PERSON SEARCHED AND THEREAFTER 4 SUCH SATISFACTION NOTE ALONG WITH THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT TO BE PLACED IN THE FILE OF SUCH OTHER PERSON . (3) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN L AW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT NO FAIR OPPORTUNITY OF HEARI NG U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE COMPLETING TH E ASSESSMENT U/S 153C OF THE IT ACT. (4) (A) THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS AN D NOT TENABLE IN LAW AND ON FACTS. (B) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEN D ANY/ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF T HE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 4. FROM THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, IT WO ULD BE CLEAR THAT THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE VA LIDITY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27.02.2012 ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT FR AMED THEREAFTER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). 5. FACTS OF THE CASE AS APPEARING IN THE ORDERS OF THE A UTHORITIES BELOW IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF A BUILDER AND DEVELOPER OF REAL ESTATE. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIO N U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTME NT IN VICTORY GROUP OF CASES (MAIN JAGAT GROUP) ITS DIRECTORS, OTHER INDIVIDU ALS AND CONNECTED ASSOCIATES AT BUSINESS & RESIDENTIAL PREMISES ON 14.09.2010. A SURVEY 5 OPERATION U/S 133A OF THE ACT WAS ALSO CONDUCTED ON THE B USINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 14.09.2010. THE AO ISSUED THE NOTICE U/ S 153A OF THE ACT ON 04.11.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N. THE ASSESSEE INFORMED THE AO THAT NO ACTION U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS I NITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE AO VERIFIED THE SAME AND FOUND THE SAID VER SION OF THE ASSESSEE AS CORRECT. ACCORDINGLY, THE AFORESAID NOTICES ISSUED U /S 153A OF THE ACT WERE WITHDRAWN AND THE ASSESSEE WAS INFORMED ACCOR DINGLY. THEREAFTER, A SATISFACTION NOTE U/S 153C OF THE ACT WAS D RAWN ON 27.02.2013 AND THE NOTICES U/S 153C OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 05.03.2013 STATED THAT RETURN OF INCOME ALREADY FILED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT ON 25.09.20 09 MAY BE TREATED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT. THE AO IN TH E BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.03.2013 OBSERVED THAT DURING T HE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF S H. PRAMOD GOEL, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS UNDERTAKEN ON 14.09.2010 IN THE CASES OF SH. PRAMOD G OEL, SMT. SAVITA GOEL AND SH. ASHISH GOEL AT BN-33, EAST SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI AND THE DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND AND SEIZED FROM THE ABOVE PREMISES. THE AO THEREAFTER FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143( 3) R.W.S. 153C OF THE ACT ON 28.03.2013, ASSESSING THE INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE AT RS.2.74 CRORES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 BY MAKING THE ADDI TIONS U/S 68 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL/PREMIUM RECEIVED BY T HE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION. 6 6. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO TH E LD. CIT(A) AND CHALLENGED THE JURISDICTION OF THE AO ASSUMED U/S 153C OF THE ACT, WHO VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.8.2014 HAS DISMISSED THE A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS IN AP PEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 8. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE H AS STATED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ITAT, DE LHI DECISION IN GROUP CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY VIDE ORDER DATED 24.3.201 7 PASSED IN ITA NO. 6225 TO 6237/DEL/2014 AND FILED THE COPY OF THE SAID DECISION BEFORE THE BENCH. SHE FURTHER FILED THE COPY OF THE DECISION OF T HE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT VS. AAKASH AROGYA MANDIR PVT. LTD. VIDE ORDER DATED 28.7.2015 REPORTED IN 2015 (7) TMI 1047 IN WHICH THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS DEALT THE SIMILAR ISSUE AND DECIDED THE APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, AS A RESULT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS SQUARELY COVERED. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, THE FILED THE COPY OF THE SYNOPSIS. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE CONTENTS THEREOF ARE REPRODUCED HEREUND ER:- 1. THE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVEN UE ARE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) DATED 20.08.20 14, WHEREBY SHE HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED ON VICTORY GROUP ON 14.09.2010 AND NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT WAS ISSU ED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 04.11.2011. HOWEVER, WHEN IT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE 7 DEPARTMENT THAT NO SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS COND UCTED IN ASSESSEE'S CASE, THE SAID NOTICE U/S 153A WAS WITHDRAWN. 3. SUBSEQUENTLY, A NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT DATED 27. 02.2013 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO IN HIS ORDER OBSERVED THA T IN CONSEQUENCE OF A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION IN THE CASE OF PRAMOD GOEL, SAVITA GOEL AND ASHISH GOEL ON 14.09.2010, SINCE CERTAIN DOCUMENT BELONGING TO ASSESSEE WAS FOUND, THEREFORE THIS N OTICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED. 4. THE ASSESSMENT, THEREAFTER, WAS COMPLETED ON 28.03.201 3, ASSESSING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.2.74 CRORES FOR AY. 2009- 10 AND AT RS.75 LACS FOR A.Y. 2010-11, MAKING ADDITIO N U/S 68 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL /PREMIUM RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 5. THE ASSESSEE WENT INTO APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), CHALLENGING THE LEGALITY OF THE NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT, AS WEL L AS THE ORDER PASSED IN CONSEQUENCE THERETO. ADDITION MADE BY THE AO O N ACCOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL/PREMIUM WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS AS WELL. THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED ALL THE GROUNDS RELATIN G TO LEGAL ISSUES IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE, WHILE ON MERITS, SHE PREFERRED T O CONFIRM THE ADDITION. THEREFORE, IN THESE CROSS APPEALS, THE ASSESSEE I S AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION ON MERITS, AND THE DEPARTME NT IS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN ALLOWING THE LEGAL GROUN DS IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE MAIN ISSUE DEALT WITH THE LD. CIT(A) WAS THE VA LIDITY OF SATISFACTION NOTE ON THE BASIS IF WHICH PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED. THIS HAS BEEN DEALT WITH BY HER IN HER ORDER AT PAGE 11 FROM PARA 8.1.4 ONWARDS. THE COPY OF THE SATISFACTION NOTE IS PLACED AT PB 17. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE SAME, IT IS QUITE EVIDENT THAT THE AO RECORDING THE SATISFACTION IS THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE, WHILE THE REQUI REMENT AS PER THE ACT IS THE RECORDING OF SATISFACTION BY THE AO OF TH E SEARCHED 8 PERSON, AS WELL AS THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS FINDING O F THE LD. CIT(A) IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE NOTE IS DATED 27.0 2.2013 AND ON THE SAME DAY THE NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT WAS ALSO ISSU ED, AND THE LAST SENTENCE OF THE NOTE READS AS UNDER: 'NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ARE HEREBY ISSUED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 TO 2010-11.' 7. FURTHER FINDING ON THIS FACT HAS BEEN RECORDED BY L D. CIT(A) BY CALLING OF ASSESSMENT RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THAT O F THE SEARCHED PERSON, AND THEREAFTER HOLDING THAT THE SATISFA CTION NOTE WAS FOUND IN THE FILE OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT IN THE FILE O F THE SEARCHED PERSON. 8. ALSO, THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE APPEA L OF THE GROUP CONCERNS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND WHILE DEALING WITH A S IMILAR ISSUE HAVE HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SATISFACTION BE ING RECORDED BY THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON, THE ASSUMPTION OF JUR ISDICTION U/S 153C OF THE ACT IN CASE OF PERSON OTHER THAN SEARCHED PE RSON WAS NOT VALID. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 24.0 3.2017 IN ITA NOS. 6225 TO 6237/DE1/2014, HAVE DECIDED THIS ISSUE AND STA TED AS UNDER: '15. ON PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS, IT WOULD BE CLEAR THAT THOSE PROVISIONS START WITH THE NON-OBSTANTE CLAUSE, SO THE SE PROVISIONS OVER RIDE THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTIONS 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 AND 153 OF THE ACT. IT IS ALSO CLEAR FROM THE SAID PROVISIONS THAT THE SATISFACTION OF THE AO OF THE SE ARCHED PERSON IS MUST FOR ASSUMING THE JURISDICTION U/S 153C OF TH E ACT IN CASE OF A PERSON OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSON. IN T HE PRESENT CASE, THE ID. CIT(A) CATEGORICALLY STATED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER (A RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SAID ORDER HAS BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE FORMER PART OF THIS ORDER) THAT THE AO DID NO T RECORD ANY SATISFACTION DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF THE SEARCHED PERSON I.E. SH. PRAMOD GO EL. ON 9 THE CONTRARY, THE AO RECORDED THE SATISFACTION NOTE IN T HE FILE OF THE OTHER PERSON I.E. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE COPY OF SATISFACTION NOTE RECORDED BY THE AO WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE NO. 21 OF THE ASSESSEE'S PAPER BOOK AND READ AS UNDER: 'DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ULS 153A IN THE CASE OF SH. PRAMOD GOEL, IT IS NOTICED THAT SEARCH A ND SEIZURE OPERATION ULS 132 WAS UNDERTAKEN ON 14.09.2010 IN THE CASE OF SH. PRAMOD GOEL, SMT. SAVITA GOEL, AND SH. ASHISH GOEL AT BN-33, EAST SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI. UNDER MENTIONED DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO M/S VICTORY DWELLINGS PVT. LTD. WERE FOUND AND SEIZED FROM THE ABOVE PREMI SES. PAGE NO. 96 TO 98 OF ANNEXURE A-1 OF PARTY V-2 IS A COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET, PROFILE LOSS ACCOUNT, SCHEDULE-A (ADVANCE AGAINST SUPPLIERS) PERTAINING TO M/S VICTORY DWELLINGS PVT. LTD, FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR ENDING 31 .3.2010. THE CASE OF M/S VICTORY DWELLINGS PVT. LTD. WAS CENTRALIZ ED WITH THIS OFFICE VIDE F. NO. CIT-DELHI- VII CENTRALI ZATION 2011-12/648 DATED 22.6.2011 ISSUED BY THE CIT, DELHI- VI, NEW DELHI. I AM THEREFORE SATISFIED THAT THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED' AS REFERRED TO ABOVE, BELONG TO M/S VICTORY DWELLINGS PVT . LTD. WARRANTING ACTION U/S 153C IN THIS CASE. ' ON PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID SATISFACTION NOTE, IT IS CRYS TAL CLEAR THAT THE SAID SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED BY THE AO IN THE PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO THE ASSESSEE I.E. M/S VICTORY DWELL INGS PVT. LTD. AND NOT IN THE CASE OF SH. PRAMOD GOEL IN W HOSE CASE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION ULS 132 OF THE ACT WAS UND ERTAKEN ON 14.09.2010. THEREFORE, THE JURISDICTION ASSUMED BY T HE AO 10 WITHOUT RECORDING THE SATISFACTION IN THE CASE OF THE SEAR CHED PERSON WAS NOT VALID. 17. FROM THE PLAIN READING OF THE AFORESAID CIRCULAR NO. 24/2015 DATED 31.12.2015 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRE CT TAXES, IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT EVEN IF THE A0 OF THE SEARCHED PERSO N AND OF THE OTHER PERSON IS ONE AND THE SAME THEN HE IS REQUIRE D TO RECORD HIS SATISFACTION IN THE CASE OF SEARCHED PERSON. IN T HE PRESENT CASE, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON HAS NOT RECORDED ANY SATISFACTION RATHER THE SATI SFACTION IS RECORDED BY THE AO OF THE OTHER PERSON I.E. THE ASSESSE E WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE SATISFACTION NOTE, COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE NO. 21 OF THE ASSESSEE'S PAPER BOOK. THEREFORE, TH E ASSESSMENT FRAMED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT VALID .' 9. IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT THE RECORDING OF SATISFACTION BY THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON THAT THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED BELONGS TO A PERSON, OTHER THAN THE PERSON SEARCHED, IS SINE QUA NON F OR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C OF THE ACT. THE ABOV E RATIO HAS BEEN RECENTLY FOLLOWED BY HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF ARN INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA LTD. V. ACIT IN WRIT P ETITION NO. 2768/2017 DATED 25.04.2017. 10. FURTHER RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD IS PLACED ON THE F OLLOWING JUDGMENTS: DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. AAKASH AROGYA MANDIR PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 509/2015 DATED 28.07.2015 'ASSESSMENT ULS 153C - WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) IS REQUIRED, FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 153- C OF THE ACT , TO RECORD SATISFACTION EVEN WHEN THE AO OF THE PERSON SEARCHED AND THE AO WHO EXERCISES JURISDICTION QUA THE ASSESSEE IS THE SAME? - ITAT HELD THAT THE AO HAS NOT RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION QUA THE SEARCHED PERSON - HELD THAT:- THE REVENUE HAS NOT PLACED ANY 11 MATERIAL TO DISPUTE THE FACTUAL FINDING OF THE ITAT THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF THE LAW EXPLAINED BY THIS COURT IN PE PSI FOODS [2014 (8) TMI 425 - DELHI HIGH COURT 1 REGARDING THE RECORDING OF SATISFACTION BY THE AO EVEN IN RESPECT OF T HE SEARCHED PERSON WAS NOT FULFILLED. CONSEQUENTLY, THE FAC T THAT IT WAS THE SAME AO BOTH FOR THE SEARCHED PERSON AND THE ASSE SSEE MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO THE CONSEQUENCE OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE LEGAL REQUIREMENT REGARDING THE RECORDING OF SATI SFACTION. THE COURT ALSO AGREES WITH THE ITAT THAT EVEN IF THE AO WERE THE SAME, SATISFACTION WOULD HAVE TO BE RECORDED SEPARATELY QUA THE SEARCHED PERSON AND THE ASSESSEE. - DECIDED AGAINST REVENUE' ITAT DELHI IN THE CASE OF MOON BUILDTECH PVT. LTD.V . DCIT IN ITA NO. 202/DEL/2014 DATED 31.03.2016 'VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT ULS 153C - HELD THAT:- ASSESSING OF FICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON HAS FAILED TO RECORD HIS SATISFACTIO N THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE I.E. OTHER T HAN THE SEARCHED PERSON. THE RECORDING OF SUCH A SATISFACTION IS SINE QUA NON FOR COMMENCING ANY PROCEEDINGS ULS 153C OF THE A CT. HENCE, NO ACTION COULD HAVE BEEN INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN ABSENCE OF RECORDING OF SATISFACTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. SANS SUCH SATISFACTION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INVALIDLY TAKEN RECOURSE TO THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS ULS 153C OF THE ACT. HENCE, THE ACTION U/S 153C IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE LACK OF JURISDICTION BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE UNDER THE GUISE OF A TECHNICAL DE FECT. NO ASSESSMENT CAN BE LAWFULLY TAKEN UP AND COMPLETED UNLE SS THE CONCERNED AUTHORITY HAS THE JURISDICTION TO DO SO. L ACK OF JURISDICTION CANNOT BE CURED. SINCE THE VERY FIRST STEP PR IOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE ULS 153C OF THE ACT HAS NOT BEEN FULFIL LED AND INASMUCH AS THE CONDITION PRECEDENT HAS NOT BEEN MET, THE 12 PROCEEDINGS ULS 153C ARE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED - DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE' ITAT DELHI IN THE CASE OF GLOBAL REALTY CREATIONS L TD. V. DCIT IN ITA NO. 1245/DELL2014 DATED 07.04.2017 11. THIS ISSUE HAS FURTHER BEEN CLARIFIED BY THE CBDT VI DE ITS CIRCULAR NO. 24/2015 ISSUED ON 31ST DECEMBER, 2015, WHEREBY IT H AS BEEN CLARIFIED THAT EVEN IF THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PER SON AND THE 'OTHER PERSON' IS ONE AND THE SAME, THEN ALSO THE AO IS REQUIRED TO RECORD HIS SATISFACTION. 12. THEREFORE, SINCE NO SATISFACTION HAS BEEN RECORDED B Y THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON IN ANY OF THESE CASES, THE ASSUMPTION O F JURISDICTION IN ASSESSEE'S CASE IS BAD IN LAW, AND THUS, THE CONSEQUENT ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE AO HAS BEEN RIGHTLY QUASHED BY THE LD. CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, HE REQUESTED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE ALLOWED. 9. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPOR TED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AND FURTHER SUBMITTED TH AT EVEN IF THE AO/ASSESSING AUTHORITY RECEIVING SATISFACTION NOTE HAD NOT FOUND ANYTHING ADVERSE AGAINST ASSESSEE ON EXAMINATION OF ACCOUNTS BOOKS, T HE NOTICE U/S. 153 OF THE ACT STILL COULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, LD. DR FILED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION, WHICH READ AS UNDER:- IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT A WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE ISSUE OF INITIATION AND RECORDING OF SATISFACTION U/S 153C , A LEGAL ISSUE, IS BEING SUBMITTED HEREWITH. IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITT ED THAT 13 1. THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 153 C MAY KINDLY BE EXAMI NED BY THE HONOURABLE BENCH. THE STATUTORY PROVISION NOWHERE LAYS DOWN THE MANNER OF REACHING SATISFACTION. DELHI HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF SSP AVIATION LTD 346 ITR 177(DEL) WHERE HO N'BLE HIGH COURT HAS USED THE WORD 'SATISFACTION THAT IS REQUIRE D TO BE REACHED AND NOWHERE HON'BLE COURT HAS SAID IN WHAT MANNER SATISFACTION HAS TO BE RECORDED. THIS VIEW IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A AND 153C OF THE I.T. ACT WHERE THE MANNER OF REACHING SATISFACTION HAS NOT BEEN LAID DOWN. 2. WHAT IS REQUIRED IS THAT PROPER SATISFACTION WAS REACH ED BY THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON THAT THE DOCUMENTS BELONG ED TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTIO N 153A.THIS SATISFACTION WAS EXPLICITLY REACHED BY THE AO O F SEARCHED PERSON DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 09 SINCE HE WAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF BOTH THE SEARCHED PERSON AND THE APPELLANT UNDER CENTRALIZATION ORDER 127 DATED 22.0 6.2011. THE LANGUAGE OF THE SATISFACTION NOTE (PLACED AT ANNEX URE-1) WAS NOT PROPERLY EXAMINED BY THE LD CIT(A) WHO MISINT ERPRETED THE NOTE AS COMING FROM AO OF THE 'OTHER PERSON'. THE LANGUAGE IS EXPLICIT AND SHOWS THAT SATISFACTION IS IN FACT OF THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON IE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 09, HOLDING JURI SDICTION OVER BOTH SEARCHED PERSON AND OTHER PERSONS INCLUDING APP ELLANT 14 (JURISDICTION CONFERRED VIDE CENTRALIZATION ORDER DT 22.06.2011). THIS MAKES IT AMPLY CLEAR THAT THIS IS THE SATISFACTION O F THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON BEFORE TRANSFERRING THE FILE OF THE APPELLANT TO HIMSELF FOR PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN T HE CAPACITY OF AO OF THE 'OTHER PERSON'. THIS SATISFACTION NO TE IS THE SATISFACTION OF THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON IE DCIT CE NTRAL CIRCLE 09, POST CENTRALIZATION OF CASES VIDE ORDER DT 22. 06.2011 (CLEARLY MENTIONED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PARA 1 PAGE 1) . THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON HAS THUS CLEARLY RECORDED H IS SATISFACTION REGARDING DOCUMENTS FOUND TO BELONG TO APP ELLANT THUS: 'I AM THEREFORE SATISFIED THAT THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED AS RE FERRED TO ABOVE BELONG TO M/S VICTORY ACCOMMODATION PVT LTD WARRANTING ACTION ULS 153C IN THIS CASE' DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 09 NEW DELHI LEARNED AND HONOURABLE BENCH MAY KINDLY NOTE THUS THAT THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AND OF THE APPELLANT I S SAME. THE SATISFACTION NOTE DATED 27.03.2013 CLEARLY SHOWS THAT SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED BY THE AO WHO WAS AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AS WELL AS THE OTHER PERSON I.E. DCIT CE NTRAL CIRCLE 09. POST CENTRALIZATION UNDER ORDER DT 26.06.20 11, AND 15 THEREAFTER SATISFACTION NOTE WAS PLACED ON THE FILE OF T HE APPELLANT. PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WOULD SHOW THAT INITIAL LY THE AO WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE APPELLANT WAS THE SEARCHED PERSON AND THEREFORE HE ISSUED NOTICES U/S 153A DATED 04.11.2011 WHICH WERE SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDRAWN ON 26.02.2013 AS HAVING ERRONEOUSLY ISSUED. THEREUPON THE AO, AS ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSO N, DREW THE SATISFACTION NOTE ON 27.03.2011 TO RENDER JU RISDICTION UPON HIMSELF AS ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE APPELLANT. THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS AND THE SATISFACTION NOTE WILL CLEARLY SHOW THAT SA TISFACTION HAS BEEN RECORDED AS REQUIRED UNDER 153C BY THE AO HOL DING JURISDICTION OVER THE SEARCHED PERSON. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, JUDICIAL DECISIONS HAVE HELD THA T WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE PERSONS SEARCHED AND THE ASSESSING OFFI CER OF THE PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSONS SEARCHED ARE THE SA ME, THEN THERE IS NO NEED OF RECORDING SATISFACTION IN THE RECORD S OF PERSONS SEARCHED FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153 C OF THE ACT. THE REQUIREMENT AS PER LAW IS THAT THE AO 'IS, SAT ISFIED THAT ANY MONEY DOCUMENTS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED BELONGS TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN S 153A ', THEN T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ETC SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AVING JURISDICTION. WHAT IS REQUIRED IS THAT SATISFACTION BE RE ACHED. 16 THIS VIEW IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF HON'BLE IT AT IN THE CASE OF M/S. PIYUSH INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA PVT. LTD. ITA N O. 1072/DEL/2011 VIDE ORDER DATED 25.10.2012 IN PARA N O.2 AND BY 133 TTJ 53 BILASPUR ACIT V PANCHURAM DESHMUKH. THE H ON'BLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF PANCHURAM OESHMUKH(SUPRA) HELD THAT A 'HYPERTECHNICAL APPROACH CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO SUFFER THE REVENUE WHICH IS COLLECTED FOR THE WELFARE OF THE STATE AND SPE NT FOR THE SAME' AND SINCE THE AO WAS THE SAME IN THESE CASES, SO THERE WAS NO NEED OF COMMUNICATION OF SATISFACTION. '7. AS PER AMENDED PROVISIONS OF S. 153C, SATISFACTION H AS TO BE ARRIVED AT WITH REGARD TO BELONGINGNESS OF A DOCUME NT FOUND DURING THE SEARCH AND NOT REGARDING THE UNDISCLO SED INCOME. THE AO HAS ISSUED NOTICE, AFTER CONSIDERING ALL TH E RELATED PARTICULARS. THE SEIZED MATERIAL WAS RECEIVED O N 21ST OCT., 2005. PRIOR TO THIS, THE AO WAS HAVING ENOUGH E VIDENCE TO RECORD SATISFACTION AND THE SAME IS CONTAINED IN THE OR DER SHEET. THE SATISFACTION GIVES SPECIFIC PARTICULARS OF ANNEX URES TO THE SEIZED MATERIAL AND THE CONTENTS OF THE SEIZED M ATERIAL, WHICH SHOWS THAT THE AO APPLIED HIS MIND BEFORE ISSUING T HE NOTICE. IN THIS BACKGROUND, IT IS NOT CORRECT TO SUGGEST T HAT THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED WITHOUT PROPER SATISFACTION. REGARD ING ISSUE OF SUBSEQUENT NOTICE, AO HAS STATED THAT IT WAS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF ABUNDANT PRECAUTION AND ALL EARLIER 17 PROCEEDINGS WERE SUPERSEDED BY THE FRESH NOTICE WHICH TAK ES CARE OF ALL BACKGROUND, WHICH IS JUSTIFIED. 8 HYPERTECHNICAL APPROACH CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO SUFFER TH E REVENUE WHICH IS COLLECTED FOR THE WELFARE OF THE STATE AND SPENT FOR THE SAME. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES ALL THE PRELIMINARY ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE RIGHTLY REJECTED BY THE AO AND BY THE CIT(A), WHICH NEEDS NO INTERFERENCE FROM OUR SIDE. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTIO N THAT THE AO IS SAME IN THESE CASES, SO THERE IS NO NEED OF COMMUNICATION OF SATISFACTION. WE ARE AWARE OF THE RAT IO OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MANISH MAHESHWA RI V. ASSTT. CIT [2007J 208 CTR (SC) 27: [2007J 289 ITR 341 (SC) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE AO HAS TO RECO RD HIS SATISFACTION THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO THIRD PARTY AND HANDOVER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS AND ASSETS SEIZED TO AO HAVING JURISDICTION AGAI NST THE SAID THIRD PERSON. THIS RATIO IS NOT A LIABLE WHEN 'JURISDICTION OF BOTH ASSESSEES VESTS IN SAME AO. IN CASE OF SHRI TRILOK SINGH DHILLON GROUP, THE AO IS SAME. WIT HOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, LANGUAGE OF PROVISIONS OF SS. 15 8BD AND 153C IS NOT SIMILAR. THE PROVISION OF S. 153C MENTI ONS ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ART ICLES OR THING OR THINGS OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR DOCUMENTS TO A PER SON 18 OTHER THAN PERSON REFERRED TO IN S. 153A THE ISSUE OF H ANDING OVER COMES WHEN AO IN SS. 153A AND 153C IS SAME, AND THEN THERE IS NO QUESTION OF HANDING OVER OF DOCUMENTS ETC. IMPLIEDLY, NO OCCASION FOR RECORDING SATISFACTION WITH A PERSON SUBJECTED TO S. 153C ACTION. ALTERNATIVE STAND OF THE ASSE SSEE WAS THAT THE SEIZED MATERIALS WERE RECEIVED BY THE AO O NLY ON 21ST OCT., 2005 I.E., MUCH AFTER THE ISSUE OF THE NO TICE UNDER S. 153C I.E., 16TH FEB., 2005. THEREFORE, THER E WAS NO MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH THE AO FOR TAKING SUCH ACTION . THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN TAKEN CARE BY US IN PRECEDING PARA OF THIS ORDER. 'EMPHASIS SUPPLIED. THIS DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF HON'BLE ITAT HAS B EEN FOLLOWED BY ANOTHER CO-ORDINATE BENCH DECISION OF HON'BL E ITAT IN THE CASE OF VARSHA BUILDWEL INDIA PVT. LTD. & PIYUSH B UILDWELL IN ITA NO. 5526/0/2013 & 5527/0/2013 ORDER DATED 28.11.201 4. 4. THIS IS EXACTLY THE VIEW TAKEN BY KERALA HIGH COURT IN DR KM MEHBOOB V DCIT (2012) TIOL-642-HC-KERALA-IT (HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT) WHEREIN THEY HAVE SAID IN THE CONTEXT OF D IFFERENT AOS THAT, 'THIS IS PURELY AN INTERNAL ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN TWO DEPARTMENTAL OFFICERS' AND IN THIS CASE SINCE THE SAME OFFI CER HELD JURISDICTION IN DUAL CAPACITY, HIS SATISFACTION IS CLEARLY MA DE OUT AND 'THEREFORE THERE IS, NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE'S COUNSEL THAT SATISFACTION IS REQUIRED TO BE RECORDED BY TH E AO, WHO 19 CONDUCTED THE SEARCH BEFORE TRANSFERRING MATERIALS OR AR TICLES OR THINGS FOUND BELONGING; TO ANOTHER ASSESSE'. THE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V PANCHJANYAM MANAGEMENT 333 ITR 28 1 (KERALA) HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT), WHILE DISTINGUISH ING THE FACTS OF THE CASE DECIDED BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF MAN ISH MAHESHWARI REPORTED AT 289 ITR 341 (SC) HELD AT PARA 7 'IN OUR VIEW, IN THE FIRST PLACE, THERE IS NO MENTION IN SECT ION 15880 THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE TRANSFERRING THE FILE TO AN OTHER OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION TO ASSESS THE PERSON OTHER THAN THE ASSE SSEE PROCEEDED UNDER SECTION 132 OR 132A HAS TO RECORD HIS SATI SFACTION IN WRITING. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT WHEREVER ASSE SSING OFFICERS ARE REQUIRED TO RECORD THEIR SATISFACTION BEFORE ISSUAN CE OF NOTICE, THE STATUTE PRESCRIBES THE SAME. A SITUATION OF THAT NATU RE IS COVERED BY SECTION 148(2) WHICH REQUIRES THE OFFICER TO R ECORD REASONS FOR REOPENING AN ASSESSMENT BEFORE ISSUING NOTICE. NOT ONLY IS THERE NO SUCH REQUIREMENT IN SECTION 158BD BUT WHAT W E NOTICE IS THAT THE SATISFACTION REFERRED TO THEREIN IS ONLY AB OUT UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF A PERSON OTHER THAN THE ASSESSEE SEARCHED UNDER SE CTION 132 OR INVESTIGATED UNDER SECTION 132A AND THE SATISFACT ION IS ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRANSFERRING THE FILE TO THE OFFICE R HAVING JURISDICTION TO ASSESS SUCH OTHER PERSON. IN FACT, AFTER RE CEIPT OF THE DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER TRANSFERR ING IT THE OFFICER TO WHOM MATERIALS ARE TRANSFERRED SHOULD FO LLOW THE 20 PROCEDURE UNDER SECTION 158BC THAT IS TO ISSUE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE REQUIRING HIM TO FILE RETURN IN FORM 28 AND TO MAKE REGULAR ASSESSMENT AFTER FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURE CONTAINE D IN SECTION 142, AND IF REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE I N SECTIONS 143(2) AND (3), 144 AND 145 OF THE ACT. SO MUCH SO, IN OUR VIEW, NON-RECORDING OF REASON AND NON-COMMUNICATION OF THE S AME BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 158BC WI LL NOT INVALIDATE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 158BD READ WITH SECTION 1588C. IN FACT WHEN RECORDS ARE RECEIVED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER FROM ANOTHER OFFICER UNDER SECTION 158BD HE HAS TO ONLY ISSUE NOTICE TO FILE RETURN IN FORM 2B. THE REASONS AND MATERIALS BASED ON WHICH UNDISCLOSED INCOME IS PROPOSED TO BE ASSESSED SHOULD BE COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE WHEN ASSESSMENT IS MADE BASED ON THE RETURN FILED WHICH IS A STEP AFTER ISSUING NOTICE AND AFTER RECEIPT OF RETURN. BY VIRTUE OF OPERATION OF SE CTION 142 EVERY ASSESSEE ASSESSED UNDER SECTIONS 158BC AND 158BD GETS AN OPPORTUNITY TO FILE OBJECTIONS. IN OTHER WORDS, THE V ALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT IS NOT AFFECTED BY REASON OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S FAILURE TO RECORD HIS SATISFACTION UNDER SECTION 158BD W HICH IS ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRANSFERRING THE FILE AND ONCE THE FILE IS TRANSFERRED, THE TRANSFERRING OFFICER BECOMES FUNCTUS OFF ICIO AND THE JURISDICTION FOR ALL PURPOSES IS TRANSFERRED TO THE OFFICE R TO WHOM THE FILE IS TRANSFERRED AND WHO HAS JURISDICTION TO ASSESS THE ASSESSEE 21 ABOUT WHOM DETAILS ARE OBTAINED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH OF ANOTHER ASSESSEE. THE PECULIAR FEATURES OF THIS CASE ARE SUCH THAT THE RE WAS NO NECESSITY OR TRANSFERRING THE FILE FROM ONE OFFICER T O ANOTHER, BECAUSE THE PERSON SEARCHED IS THE MANAGING PARTNER AND B ASED ON THE MATERIALS GATHERED SEARCH ASSESSMENT IS MADE OF THE ON THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM WHEREIN THE SEARCHED ASSESSEE IS THE MANAG ING PARTNER. SO MUCH SO, ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 158B D READ WITH SECTION 158BC IS SUFFICIENT FOR INITIATION AT ASSESSME NT WHICH IN THIS CASE IS ADMITTED DONE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN IN FORM 2B IN TERMS A NOTICE ISSUED. THEREFORE WHAT REMAINS IS ONLY THE ASSESSEE'S CONTEST AGAIN ST THE ASSESSMENT ON THE MERITS WHICH THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT DONE SUBHAM JAVEDVS ACIT (2010) 122 ITO 307 (BANGALORE) I TAT BANGALORE BENCH 'B' REITERATE THIS POSITION. 5. THE CASE OF SUPREME COURT DECISION OF CALCUTTA KNITWE ARS LUDHIANA DATED 12TH MARCH 2014, 362 ITR 673(SC) THE COURT HAS HELD THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 158 BO OF THE ACT A SATISFACTION NOTE MUST BE PREPARED BY THE AO BEFORE HE TRANSMITS TH E RECORDS TO THE OTHER ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAS JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON. THE VIEW WAS FOLLOWED BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJU FINANCE CORPORATION 231 TAXMAN 44(DE L). IN THE ABOVE CASES THE AOS OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AND THE OTHER P ERSON WERE DIFFERENT AND INVOLVED TRANSFER OF RECORDS FROM O NE AO TO 22 ANOTHER AO. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE AO HOLDING JURISDIC TION OVER BOTH SEARCHED PERSON AND OVER PERSON TO WHOM NOTICE UNDE R SECTION 153C WAS ISSUED IS THE SAME PERSON. THIS IS EVIDENT F ROM SATISFACTION NOTE WHICH THE AO HAS RECORDED. THIS IS A DIST INCTION RECOGNIZED BY THE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V PANCHJANYAM MANAGEMENT (SUPRA). 6. FURTHER CIT (A) FAILED TO REALIZE THAT JURISDICTI ONAL HIGH COURT IN SSP AVIATION LTD 346 ITR 177(DEL) AND ANIL KUMAR BH ATIA 352 ITR 493 (DELHI) HAD STIPULATED THAT THERE IS NO CONDITION OF SATISFACTION ON THE EXISTENCE OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOR ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 153 C- THE AO IS OBLIGED TO INITIATE U/S 153 C WHERE VALUABLE ARTICLE, BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, DOCUMENT ETC RELATIN G TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSON IS SEIZED. SIMILAR VIEW IS TAKEN IN CIT V CHETAN DASS 25 TAXMAN.COM 227 (DELHI). 7. IN THE CASE OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT CASE OF KABUL CHAWLA 380 ITR 573(DEL) ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE REL ATED CASES OF THE APPELLANT WERE DECIDED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT AND UN DER WHICH THE APPELLANTS CASE IS SOUGHT TO BE TREATED AS COVERED, WAS DELIVERED ON A PECULIAR CONSPECTUS OF FACTS MISSING IN THI S CASE I.E. IN THAT CASE THE ASSSESSE WAS ALSO A SEARCHED PERSON U/S 153A A ND ADDITION WAS MADE U/S 2(22)(E) ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENTS R ECEIVED FROM COMPANIES IN WHICH THE ASSESSE WAS A OWNER OF MORE THA N 10% SHARE. THE COURT HELD THAT THE SAME WAS NOT AN INCR IMINATING 23 MATERIAL ON WHICH ADDITIONS U/S 153A CAN BE MADE. IN T HE APPELLANTS CASE THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT THE OWNERSHIP OF THE DOCUMENTS IN THE FORM OF BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT MENTIONED IN THE SATISFACTION NOTE AND THE SAME HAS NE VER BEEN QUESTIONED BY THE APPELLANT. THE BALANCE SHEET SHOWS TH E INVESTMENTS MADE IN ITS SHARE CAPITAL WHICH CORRELATED AND HAS NEXUS WITH VARIOUS OTHER DOCUMENTS IMPOUNDED AS PAGE 51 TO 55 OF A-5 IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY FROM THE APPELLANT PREMISES ON THE SAME DATE OF SEARCH I.E 14.09.2010 WHICH DEPICTED TRAN SACTIONS OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IN THE NATURE OF SHARE CAPITAL, TH E BASIS ON WHICH THE AO MADE THE ADDITIONS. THIS ITSELF DISTINGUISH ES THE APPELLANTS CASE WHERE THERE EXISTS IMPOUNDED MATERIALS WH ICH HAD NEXUS WITH AND RELEVANCE WITH THE SEIZED MATERIALS AS MA NDATED BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE KABUL CHAWLA CASE. THE ITAT IN RELATED CASES OF THE APPELLANT COMPANIES HAS NOT ONLY IGN ORED THIS FACT BUT HAS GLOSSED OVER THIS CRUCIAL NEXUS BETWEEN THE SE IZED MATERIAL AND ADDITIONS MADE ON THE ONE HAND AND THE MATERIALS IMPOUNDED IN SURVEY FROM THE APPELLANT'S PREMISES. THE ITAT HAS ALSO IGNORED THE KERALA HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE O F PANCHJANYAM MANAGEMENT (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE ISSUE OF SAME AO FOR THE SEARCHED PERSON AND OTHER PERSON HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE COURT. 24 8. THE HONB'LE ITAT HAS ALSO NOT CONSIDERED THE APEX COUR T DECISION IN THE CASE OF MUKUNDRAY K SHAH REPORTED IN 2 90 ITR 433(SC) WHERE THE APEX COURT UPHELD THE ADDITIONS U/S 158BC(C) R.W. 143(3) MADE U/S 2(22)(E) ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED M ATERIAL WHICH ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED WAS PRINT OUT OF THE LEDGER ACCOU NT THAT WAS PART OF THE AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSE SSEE REFLECTING INVESTMENT MADE IN RBI RELIEF BONDS. THE HO N'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KABUL CHAWLA(SUPRA) HAS ALSO N OT CONSIDERED THE CASE OF MUKUNDRAY K SHAH (SUPRA) ON THE ISSUE OF 'INCRIMINATING' MATERIAL WHILE DECIDING. 9. THE RECENT JUDICIAL THINKING HAS ALSO BEEN IGNORED W HICH IS APPARENT FROM THE APEX COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF M AK DATA P LTD 358 ITR 593(SC) WHICH HAS HELD IN THE CONTEXT OF 2 71(1)(C) AT PARA 10 THAT' THE AO HAS TO SATISFY WHETHER PENALTY P ROCEEDINGS BE INITIATED OR NOT DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS AND THE AO IS NOT REQUIRED TO RECORD HIS SATISFACTION IN A PARTICULAR MANNER OR REDUCE IT INTO WRITING'. THE WORD OF 'SATISF IED' USED IN 271(1)(C) IS SIMILARLY PLACED AS THE WORD 'SATISFIED' O CCURRING IN SECTION 153A/C. SIMILARLY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 271(1)(C) HAS HELD IN THE CASE OF ECS LTD 336 ITR 162(DEL) THAT IF SATISFACTION IS DISCERNABLE FROM TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER THEN PENALTY IS JUSTIFIED. IN A RECENT DECISION, T HE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HELD IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 14A, IN THE CASE 25 OF INDIABULL FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD 76 TAXMANN.COM 268( DEL), THAT AO NEED NOT EXPRESSLY RECORD HIS DISSATISFACTION ABOUT ASSESSE' S CALCULATION IN CASES WHERE HE HAS CARRIED OUT ELABORATE A NALYSIS FOR DETERMINING EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR EARNING EXEMPT INCOME. 10. THE ORDER OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL DELHI HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF SSP AVIATION LTD. VS. DCIT IN W.P.C. 309/2011 DATED 29.03.2012 HAS NOT BEEN FOLLOWED OR DISTINGUISHED WHIC H IS AN ORDER OF PRIOR DATE AND BINDING BEING THE ORDER OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. IT IS SETTLED JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE THAT THE DECISIO N OF A HIGH COURT IS BINDING ON THE TRIBUNALS IN ITS JURISDICTION. BESIDES THIS, THE HON'BLE IT AT DOES NOT SEEM TO BE AWAR E OF COORDINATE BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S PIYUSH INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA PVT LTD ITA NO.1072/DELL2011 VID E ORDER DATED 25.10.2012 WHICH HELD THAT 'ADMITTEDLY SAME A.O. WAS HOLDING JURISDICTION OVER AL L THE CASES OF PIYUSH GROUP INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS NO REQU IREMENT FOR SENDING THE MATERIAL TO ANY OTHER AO. BESIDES, AS PER PROVISIONS ULS 153A/153C OF THE ACT ASSESSMENT IN THE SEAR CH CASES IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE.' FURTHER, HON'BLE ITAT HAS OBSERVED IN THIS PARA THAT 'SO FAR AS CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR THAT SATISFACTION WAS NOT RECORDED BEFORE ISSUING NOTICE F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 TO THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED 26 WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION FOR PROCEEDINGS ULS 153C READ WITH SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, ON 28.08.2009 BEFORE ISSUING NOTICE ULS 142(1) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND NOTICES ISSUED ULS 153A READ WITH SECTION 153 C OF THE ACT IN THE REMAINING EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. THUS THERE IS NO SUBSTANCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR THAT SATISFACTION OF THE AO WA S NOT RECORDED BEFORE INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C READ W ITH SECTION 153A OF THE ACT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE.' AS DISCUSSED SATISFACTION HAS BEEN DULY RECORDED BY THE AO, EXISTENCE OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME IS NOT A PRE-REQUISITE UND ER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 153C WHICH IS DISTINGUISHABLE FROM TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BD. HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SSP AVIATION (MENTIONED SUPRA) AS WELL AS BY THE HON'BL E ITAT IN THE CASE OF APPORVA EXTRUSION PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 3308/D EL/2010 VIDE ORDER DATED 09.10.2014 AND ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S. PI YUSH INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA PVT. LTD. ITA NO.1 072/DEL/2011 VIDE ORDER DATED 25.10.2012 ENDORSE THIS. DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL ARE DISTING UISHABLE ON BOTH FACT AND LAW AND IN CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE PR INCIPLE OF CASSUS OMISSUS THAT A MATTER WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN, BUT HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED FOR IN A STATUTE CANNOT BE SUPPLIED BY COURT S, AS TO DO SO WILL BE LEGISLATION AND NOT CONSTRUCTION. 27 11. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT TECHNICALITIES AND IRREGULAR ITIES WHICH DO NOT OCCASION FAILURE OF JUSTICE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO DEFEAT THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF SMALL AND CURA BLE TECHNICALITIES AND IRREGULARITIES, ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS CON DUCTED BY THE REVENUE CANNOT BE HELD ILLEGAL OR WITHOUT JURISDICTION . THE SEARCH AND SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE BORNE OUT THE EVASION OF TAXES AND TO SET ASIDE THE WHOLE INVESTIGATION AND SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENTS ON THE BASIS OF TECHNICALITIES IS UNFOUNDED WITHO UT APPELLANT SHOWING WHAT PREJUDICE WAS CAUSED TO IT. APPEL LANT IS NOW SEEKING RELIEF ON TECHNICALITIES. 12. CONSIDER THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT WI TH VARIOUS OTHER HIGH COURTS ON THE ISSUE OF PREJUDICE CAUSED TO THE AFFECTED PARTIES. AS DELINEATED BY THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHIRISH MADHUKAR DALVI REPORTED IN 287 ITR 24 2(BOM): IN THE CASE OF STATE OF KEMLA V. MUNIYALLA , 1985 SE 4 70, IT IS HELD THAT MERELY BECAUSE AN ORDER IS PURPORTED TO BE M ADE UNDER A WRONG PROVISION OF LAW, IT DOES NOT BECOME INVALID SO L ONG AS THERE IS SOME OTHER PROVISION OF LAW. IN THE CASE OF HUKUMCHAND MILLS LTD. V. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, 1964 SC 1329 THE APEX COURT HAS RULED THAT M ERE MISTAKE IN THE OPENING PART OF THE NOTIFICATION IN RECITING T HE WRONG SOURCE OF POWER DOES NOT AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF THE AMENDMEN TS MADE. 28 IN THE CASE OF STATE BANK OF PATIALA V. S.K. SHAIMA , 3 SCC 364 THE APEX COURT RULED THAT IN CASE OF A PROCEDURAL PROV ISION WHICH IS NOT OF A MANDATORY CHARACTER, THE COMPLAINT OF VIOLATI ON HAS TO BE EXAMINED FROM THE STANDPOINT OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE. THE ORDER PASSED IN VIOLATION OF SUCH PROVISION CAN BE SET ASIDE ONL Y WHERE SUCH VIOLATION HAS OCCASIONED PREJUDICE TO THE SUBJECT. IT FURTHER WENT ON TO OBSERVE THAT EVEN MANDATORY REQUIREMENT CA N BE WAIVED BY THE PERSON CONCERNED, IF SUCH MANDATORY PROVI SION OF LAW IS CONCEIVED IN HIS INTEREST AND NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTER EST. THE CONDUCT OF THE SUBJECT MUST BE BORNE IN MIND WHILE EXAM INING A COMPLAINT OF NON-OBSERVANCE OF PROCEDURAL RULES GOVERNIN G SUCH ENQUIRIES. AS A RULE, ALL SUCH PROCEDURAL RULES ARE DESIGN ED TO AFFORD A FULL AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE SUBJECT TO DEFEN D HIMSELF. IN THE CASE OF DOVE INVESTMENTS (P) LTD. V. GUJARAT IND USTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION 2 SCC 619 THE APEX COURT HAS O BSERVED THAT REGARD MUST BE HAD TO THE CONTEXT, SUBJECT-MATTER AND OBJECT OF THE STATUTORY PROVISION IN QUESTION IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE SAME IS MANDATORY OR DIRECTORY. NO UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLE OF LAW COULD BE LAID IN THAT BEHALF AS TO WHETHER A PARTICULAR PRO VISION OR ENACTMENT SHALL BE CONSIDERED MANDATORY OR DIRECTORY. I T IS THE DUTY OF THE. COURT TO TRY TO GET THE REAL INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE BY CAREFULLY ANALYSING THE WHOLE SCOPE OF THE STATUTE OR SECTION OR A PHRASE UNDER CONSIDERATION. 29 IN THE CASE OF P.T. RAJAN V. T.P.M. SAHUJ , 8 SCC 498 THE APEX COURT HAS SAID THAT WHETHER A STATUTE WOULD BE DIRECTOR Y OR MANDATORY WILL DEPEND UPON THE SCHEME THEREOF. ORDINA RILY, A PROCEDURAL PROVISION WOULD NOT BE MANDATORY EVEN IF T HE WORD 'SHALL' IS EMPLOYED THEREIN UNLESS A PREJUDICE IS CAUSED. IN SECTION 153 C THE WORDS USED ARE ' ... THE ASSESSING O FFICER IS SATISFIED ... ' IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IN CRAWFORD ON STATUTOR Y CONSTRUCTION AT P. 539, IT IS STATED: MISCELLANEOUS IMPLIED EXCEPTIONS FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF MANDATORY STATUTES, IN GENERAL EVEN WHERE STATUTE IS CL EARLY MANDATORY OR PROHIBITORY, YET, IN MANY INSTANCES, THE COURTS WILL REGARD CERTAIN CONDUCT BEYOND THE PROHIBITION OF THE ST ATUTE THROUGH THE USE OF VARIOUS DEVICES OR PRINCIPLES. MOST, IF NOT ALL OF THESE DEVICES FIND THEIR JURISDICTION IN CONSIDERATION OF JUSTICE. IT IS A WELL-KNOWN FACT THAT OFTEN TO ENFORCE THE LAW TO ITS LETTER PRODUCES MANIFEST INJUSTICE, FOR FREQUENTLY EQUITABLE AND HUMAN E CONSIDERATIONS, AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS OF A CLOSELY-RELA TED NATURE, WOULD SEEM TO BE OF A SUFFICIENT CALIBER TO EXECUTE OR J USTIFY A TECHNICAL VIOLATION OF THE LAW. IN THE CASE OF DOVE INVESTMENTS (P) LTD. (SUPRA), THE APEX COURT HAS HELD THAT IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE PERSON TO SHOW HOW HE WAS PREJUDICED. IT IS, THEREFORE, NECESSARY FOR THE PER SON OBJECTING 30 TO THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE, TO DEMONSTRATE PREJUDICE SUF FERED BY IT. THE SAME PRINCIPLE IS REITERATED IN THE CASE OF STATE BA NK OF PATIALA (SUPRA). THE HON'BLE ITAT ORDER RELIED UPON IN THE CASE OF APPE LLANT RELATED CONCERNS, NOT ONLY VIOLATE CASSUS OMISSUS BUT ARE IN CONTRAVENTION OF TRITE LAW AS THEY FAIL TO BRING OUT HOW THE APPELLANT WAS PREJUDICED PARTICULARLY AS REITERATED SUPRA WHEN THE OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH HAVE NEVER BEEN CHA LLENGED BY THE APPELLANT. THE SATISFACTION NOTE CLEARLY LAYS DO WN THAT AO OF SEARCHED PERSON DCIT CC 09 HAD RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION BEFORE MAKING ASSESSMENT OF THE APPELLANT. THE ITAT HAVE ALLOW ED RELIEF IN A CASE OF BLATANT ANT-NATIONAL ACTIVITY ON A TECHNICAL ITY. THIS IS A CASE WHERE THE APPELLANT IS CLEARLY INVOLVED IN GENERAT ING AS WELL AS LAUNDERING BLACK MONEY AND CLAIMING THE SAME AS SHARE CAP ITAL. THE AO HAS WELL ESTABLISHED, FROM VARIOUS EVIDENCES COLLE CTED IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY AND POST SEARCH INVESTIGATIONS, THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ACCEPTED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES FROM ESTABLISHED ENTRY OPERATORS IN THE FORM OF SHARE CAPITAL AND HAS LAUNDERE D ITS BLACK MONEY AS LEGITIMATE MONEY. ALL THE EFFORTS OF GOVERNM ENT IN CURBING THE MENACE OF BLACK MONEY AND MONEY LAUNDERING IS BEING BROUGHT TO NAUGHT ON MERE TECHNICALITIES AND TAKING A HYPER TECHNICAL VIEW. TO SUMMARISE: 31 THE AO IS OBLIGED TO INITIATE U/S 153 C WHERE VALUA BLE ARTICLE, BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, DOCUMENT ETC RELATING TO A P ERSON OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSON IS SEIZED. THE SATISFACTION NOTE RECORDED BY THE AO RECORDS CLEAR SATISFACTION. THE OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS RECOVERED FROM THE SEARCHED PREMISES HAS NEVER BEEN QUESTIONED BY THE APPELLANT BEF ORE ANY AUTHORITY INCLUDING THE ITAT. THE NATURE OF DOCUMENTS RECOVERED IS SUCH THAT THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THEY BELONG TO THE APPELLANT. PERUSAL OF THE SATISFACTION NOTE WILL CLEARLY SHOW THAT SATISFACTION HAS BEEN RECORDED AS REQUIRED UNDER 153C B Y THE AO HOLDING JURISDICTION OVER THE SEARCHED PERSON. THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO BRING OUT THAT HE WAS PREJUDICED PARTICULARLY AS REITERATED SUPRA THE OWNERSHI P OF DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH HAVE NEVER BEEN CHALLE NGED BY THE APPELLANT IN VIOLATION OF APEX COURT DECISIONS. DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON BOTH FACT AND LAW AND IN CLEAR VIO LATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF CASSUS OMISSUS THAT A MATTER WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN, BUT HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED FOR IN A STATUTE CANNOT BE SUPPLIED BY COURTS, AS TO DO SO WILL BE LEGISLATION AND NOT CONSTR UCTION. 32 IT IS TRITE LAW THAT EVEN ORDERS PASSED IN VIOLATION OF SUCH PROVISIONS CAN BE SET ASIDE ONLY WHERE SUCH VIOLATION HAS OCCASIONED PREJUDICE TO THE SUBJECT. THE CONDUCT OF THE SUBJECT MUST BE BORNE IN MIND WHILE EXAMINING A COMPLAINT OF NON-OBSERVANCE OF PROCEDURAL RULES GOVERNING SUCH ENQUIRIES SINCE ALL SUCH PROCEDURAL RULES AR E DESIGNED TO AFFORD A FULL AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE SUBJECT TO DEFEND HIMSELF. THIS IS SCARCELY THE ARGUMENT IN THIS CASE. IT IS THUS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL S 6239 AND 6240/DEL/2014 BE UPHELD AND THE CASE BE HEARD ON MERITS. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 13.DEFINITION OF ASSESSING OFFICER INCLUDES ADIT SATISFACTIO N IN THIS CONNECTION ATTENTION OF THE HON'BLE COURT IS INVI TED TO THE DEFINITION OF SECTION 2 (7 A) THAT THE DEFINITION OF ASSESSING OFFICER MEANS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (OR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER) (OR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR) (OR DEPUTY DIRECTOR) VESTED WITH THE RELEVANT JURISDICTION. THE SEPARATE EXTRACT FROM APPRAISAL REPORT MAY BE CALLED WHICH WOULD INDICATE THE SATISFACTION OF THE ADIT / DDIT IN RECOMMENDING ACTION UNDER S 153A/C IN CASES LISTED SPECI FYING THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS DO NOT BELONG TO SEARCHED PERSON. 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RE CORDS ESPECIALLY THE SYNOPSIS/ WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY BOTH THE PARTIE S. THE SOLE ISSUE DEALT WITH THE LD. CIT(A) WAS THE VALIDITY OF SATISFACTION N OTE ON THE BASIS IF WHICH 33 PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED. THIS HAS BEEN DEALT WI TH BY HER IN HER ORDER AT PAGE 11 FROM PARA 8.1.4 ONWARDS. THE COPY OF THE SA TISFACTION NOTE IS PLACED AT PB 17. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE SAME, IT IS QU ITE EVIDENT THAT THE AO RECORDING THE SATISFACTION IS THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE, WH ILE THE REQUIREMENT AS PER THE ACT IS THE RECORDING OF SATISFACTI ON BY THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON, AS WELL AS THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS FIND ING OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE NOTE IS DATED 27.0 2.2013 AND ON THE SAME DAY THE NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT WAS ALSO ISSUED, A ND THE LAST SENTENCE OF THE NOTE READS AS UNDER: 'NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ARE HEREBY ISSUED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 TO 2010-11.' 10.1 FURTHER FINDING ON THIS FACT HAS BEEN RECORDED BY LD. CIT(A) BY CALLING OF ASSESSMENT RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THAT OF THE SE ARCHED PERSON, AND THEREAFTER HOLDING THAT THE SATISFACTION N OTE WAS FOUND IN THE FILE OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT IN THE FILE OF THE SEARCHED PERSON . 10.2 WE FURTHER NOTE THAT ALSO, THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE GROUP CONCERNS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND WH ILE DEALING WITH A SIMILAR ISSUE HAVE HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF TH E SATISFACTION BEING RECORDED BY THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON, THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 153C OF THE ACT IN CASE OF PERSON OTHER THAN SEARCHED PERSON WAS NOT VALID. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 24.03.2017 IN ITA NOS. 6225 TO 6237/DE1/2014, HAVE DECIDED THIS ISSUE BY WHICH THE ISSU E IN DISPUTE IS 34 SQUARELY COVERED. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 2 4.3.2017 HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 14. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTI ES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE SEARCH DID NOT TAKE PLACE AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE RATHER IT TOOK PLACE AT THE PREMISES OF SH. PRAMOD GOEL, SMT. SAVIT GOEL AND SH. ASHISH GOEL U/S 1 32 OF THE ACT ON 14.09.2010 AND THE NOTICES WERE ISSUED TO THOSE PARTIES U/S 153A OF THE ACT. THE AO ALSO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE BUT LATER ON BEING SATISFIED THAT NO SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, HE WITHDREW THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153A OF THE ACT. THEREAFT ER, THE AO ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT ON THE BAS IS THAT THE DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSEE WERE FUND FROM THE PREMISES OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. THE SAID DOCUMENTS WERE THE COPIES OF BALANCE SHEET, PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND SCHEDULE A (ADVANCES AGAINST SUPPLIER). IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AO ASSUMED THE JURISDICTION U/S 153C(1) OF THE ACT, THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE SAID SECTION READ AS UNDER: 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, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED BELONGS OR BELONG TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 153A, THEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE 35 ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON AND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROCEED AGAINST EACH SUCH OTHER PERSON AND ISSUE SUCH OTHER PERSON NOTICE AND ASSESS OR REASSESS INCOME OF SUCH OTHER PERSON IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A. [PROVIDED THAT IN CASE OF SUCH OTHER PERSON, THE REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF INITIATION OF THE SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OR MAKING OF REQUISITION UNDER SECTION 132A IN THE SECOND PROVISO TO 91 [SUB-SECTION (1) OF] SECTION 153A SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF RECEIVING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON :] [PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY BY RULES MADE BY IT AND PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, SPECIFY THE CLASS OR CLASSES OF CASES IN RESPECT OF SUCH OTHER PERSON, IN WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO ISSUE NOTICE FOR ASSESSING OR REASSESSING THE TOTAL INCOME FOR SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SEARCH IS CONDUCTED OR REQUISITION IS MADE EXCEPT IN CASES WHERE ANY ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT HAS ABATED.] 15. ON PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS, IT WOULD B E CLEAR THAT THOSE PROVISIONS START WITH THE NON-OBSTANTE CLAUSE, SO THESE PROVISIONS OVER RIDE THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTIONS 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 AND 153 OF THE ACT. IT IS ALSO CLEAR FROM THE SAID PROVISIONS THAT THE SATISFACTION OF THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON IS MUST FOR ASSUMING THE JURISDICTION U/S 153C OF THE ACT IN CASE OF A PERSON OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSON. IN THE PRESENT 36 CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) CATEGORICALLY STATED IN THE IMPUGNE D ORDER (A RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SAID ORDER HAS BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE FORMER PART OF THIS ORDER) THAT THE AO DID NOT RECORD ANY SATISFACTION DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF THE SEARCHED PERSON I.E. SH. PRAMOD GOEL. ON THE CONTRARY, THE AO RECORDED THE SATISFACTION NOTE IN THE FILE OF T HE OTHER PERSON I.E. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE COPY OF SATISFACTION NOTE RECORDED BY THE AO WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE NO. 21 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK AND READ AS UNDER: DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A IN THE CASE OF SH. PRAMOD GOEL, IT IS NOTICED THAT SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 WAS UNDERTAKEN ON 14.09.2010 IN THE CASE OF SH. PRAMOD GOEL, SMT. SAVITA GOEL, AND SH. ASHISH GOEL AT BN- 33, EAST SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI. UNDER MENTIONED DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO M/S VICTORY DWELLINGS PVT. LTD. WERE FOUND AND SEIZED FROM THE ABOVE PREMISES. PAGE NO. 96 TO 98 OF ANNEXURE A-1 OF PARTY V-2 IS A COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET, PROFILE LOSS ACCOUNT, SCHEDULE-A (ADVANCE AGAINST SUPPLIERS) PERTAINING TO M/S VICTORY DWELLINGS PVT. LTD, FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR ENDING 31.3.2010. 37 THE CASE OF M/S VICTORY DWELLINGS PVT. LTD. WAS CENTRALIZED WITH THIS OFFICE VIDE F. NO. CIT-DELHI-VI/CENTRALIZATION/2011-12/648 DATED 22.6.2011 ISSUED BY THE CIT, DELHI-VI, NEW DELHI. I AM THEREFORE SATISFIED THAT THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED,, AS REFERRED TO ABOVE, BELONG TO M/S VICTORY DWELLINGS PVT. LTD. WARRANTING ACTION U/S 153C IN THIS CASE. ON PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID SATISFACTION NOTE, IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THE SAID SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED BY T HE AO IN THE PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO THE ASSESSEE I.E. M/S VICTORY DWELLINGS PVT. LTD. AND NOT IN THE CASE OF SH. PRAMOD GOEL IN WHOSE CASE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS UNDERTAKEN ON 14.09.2010. THEREFORE, THE JURISDICTION ASSUMED BY THE AO WITHOUT RECORDING THE SATISFACTION IN THE CASE OF THE SEARCHED PERSON WAS NOT VALID. 16. NOW THE CBDT VIDE CIRCULAR NO. 24/2015 DATED 31.12.2015 CLARIFY THIS POSITION, THE SAID CIRCULAR REA D AS UNDER: THE ISSUE OF RECORDING OF SATISFACTION FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 158BD/153C HAS BEEN SUBJECT MATTER OF LITIGATION. 2. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S CALCUTTA KNITWEARS IN ITS DETAILED JUDGMENT 38 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3958 OF 2014 DATED 12-3- 2014 [2014] 43 TAXMANN.COM 446 (SC) (AVAILABLE IN NJRS AT 2014-LL-0312-51) HAS LAID DOWN THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT, RECORDING OF A SATISFACTION NOTE IS A PREREQUISITE AND THE SATISFACTION NOTE MUST BE PREPARED BY THE AO BEFORE HE TRANSMITS THE RECORD TO THE OTHER AO WHO HAS JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON U/S 158BD. THE HON'BLE COURT HELD THAT 'THE SATISFACTION NOTE COULD BE PREPARED AT ANY OF THE FOLLOWING STAGES: (A) AT THE TIME OF OR ALONG WITH THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE SEARCHED PERSON UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT; OR (B) IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT; OR (C) IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. ' 3. SEVERAL HIGH COURTS HAVE HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT ARE SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR/PARI-MATERIA TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE, THE ABOVE GUIDELINES OF THE HON'BLE SC, APPLY TO PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C OF THE IT ACT, FOR THE PURPOSES OF ASSESSMENT OF INCOME OF OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSON. THIS VIEW HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY CBDT. 39 4. THE GUIDELINES OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AS REFERRED TO IN PARA 2 ABOVE, WITH REGARD TO RECORDIN G OF SATISFACTION 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 HIS SATISFACTION AS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE COURTS. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, FILING OF APPEALS ON THE ISSUE OF RECORDING OF SATISFACTION NOTE SHOULD ALSO BE DECIDED IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE JUDGMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE BOARD HEREBY DIRECTS THAT PENDING LITIGATION WITH REGARD TO RECORDING OF SATISFACTION NO TE UNDER SECTION 158BD/153C SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN/NOT PRESSED IF IT DOES NOT MEET THE GUIDELINES LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT. 17. FROM THE PLAIN READING OF THE AFORESAID CIRCULAR NO. 24/2015 DATED 31.12.2015 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT EVEN IF THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AND OF THE OTHER PERSON IS ONE AND THE SAME THEN HE IS REQUIRED TO RECORD HIS SATISFACTION IN TH E CASE OF SEARCHED PERSON. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON HAS NO T RECORDED ANY SATISFACTION RATHER THE SATISFACTION IS RECORDED BY THE AO OF THE OTHER PERSON I.E. THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE SATISFACTION NOTE, COPY OF WHI CH IS PLACED AT PAGE NO. 21 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT VALID. MOREOVER, FROM THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO IN THE SATISFACTION NOTE ALSO IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR TH AT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND, THE ADDITION WA S 40 MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE COPY OF BALANCE SHEET, PRO FIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND SCHEDULE OF ADVANCES AGAINST SUPPLIES PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSEE, THOSE DOCUMENTS WERE ALREADY IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEPARTMENT AS THE SAM E WERE FURNISHED ALONGWITH THE REGULAR RETURN OF INCOME . THEREFORE, THOSE DOCUMENTS BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION CAN BE SAID TO BE INCRIMINATING AS THOSE WERE MADE OUT OF THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON THE BASIS OF THOSE DOCUMENT S ONLY. 18. ON A SIMILAR ISSUE THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS KABUL CHAWLA REPORTED AT (2016) 380 ITR 573 HELD AS UNDER: ''THE LEGAL POSITION THAT EMERGES ON A PERUSAL OF SECTION 153A AND SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, IS AS UNDER : (I) ONCE A SEARCH TAKES PLACE UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A(1) WILL HAVE TO BE MANDATORILY ISSUED TO THE PERSON IN RESPECT OF WHOM SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED REQUIRING HIM TO FILE RETURNS FOR SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH THE SEARCH TAKES PLACE, (II) ASSESSMENTS AND REASSESSMENTS PENDING ON THE DATE OF THE SEARCH SHALL ABATE. THE TOTAL INCOME FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT YEARS WILL HAVE TO BE COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICERS AS 41 AFRESH EXERCISE. (HI) THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL EXERCISE NORMAL ASSESSMENT POWERS IN RESPECT OF THE SIX YEARS PREVIOUS TO THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH THE SEARCH TAKES PLACE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS THE POWER TO ASSESS AND REASSESS THE 'TOTAL INCOME' OF THE SIX YEARS IN SEPARATE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR EACH OF THE SIX YEARS. IN OTHER WORDS, THERE WILL BE ONLY ONE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IN WHICH BOTH THE DISCLOSED AND THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WOULD BE BROUGHT TO TAX. (IV) ALTHOUGH SECTION 153A DOES NOT SAY THAT ADDITIONS SHOULD BE STRICTLY MADE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH, OR OTHER POST-SEARCH MATERIAL OR INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH CAN BE RELATED TO THE EVIDENCE FOUND, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSMENT CAN BE ARBITRARY OR MADE WITHOUT ANY RELEVANCE OR NEXUS WITH THE SEIZED MATERIAL. OBVIOUSLY, AN ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE MADE UNDER THIS SECTION ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL (V) IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT CAN BE REITERATED AND THE ABATED ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT CAN 42 BE MADE. THE WORD 'ASSESS' IN SECTION 153A IS RELATABLE TO ABATED PROCEEDINGS (I.E., THOSE PENDING ON THE DATE OF SEARCH) AND THE WORD 'REASSESS ' TO COMPLETED ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, (VI) IN SO FAR AS PENDING ASSESSMENTS ARE CONCERNED, THE JURISDICTION TO MAKE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A MERGES INTO ONE. ONLY ONE ASSESSMENT SHALL BE MADE SEPARATELY FOR EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE BASIS OF THE FINDINGS OF THE SEARCH AND ANY OTHER MATERIAL EXISTING OR BROUGHT ON THE RECORD OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, (VII) COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS CAN BE INTERFERED WITH BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SOME INCRIMINATING MATERIAL UNEARTHED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR REQUISITION OF DOCUMENTS OR UNDISCLOSED INCOME OR PROPERTY DISCOVERED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED OR NOT ALREADY DISCLOSED OR MADE KNOWN IN THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. IT HAS FURTHER BEEN HELD THAT: ON THE DATE OF THE SEARCH THE ASSESSMENTS ALREADY STOOD COMPLETED. SINCE NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS 43 UNEARTHED DURING THE SEARCH, NO ADDITIONS COULD HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE INCOME ALREADY ASSESSED.' 19. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION, WE ARE OF THE CONFIRMED VIEW THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO IN THE ABSENCE OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 153A OF THE ACT WAS NOT VALID AND ALSO IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SATISFACTION RECORDED BY THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON, THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 153C OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF PERSONS OTHER THAN SEARCHED PERSON WAS ALSO NOT VALID. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DO NOT SEE MERIT IN THE APPEALS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS IN ITS APPEAL. IDENTICAL FACTS ARE INVOLVED IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE A.Y. 2010- 11 AND THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 AND 2010-11, THEREFORE, FINDINGS GIVEN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IN THE FORMER PART OF THIS ORDER SHALL APPLY WITH THE SAME FORCE. 20. THE FACTS RELATED TO THE CASES OF THE OTHER ASSESSEES IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AS WELL AS THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL, THEREFORE, OUR FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE FORMER PART OF THIS ORDER SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS. 21. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE ALLOWED AND THAT OF THE DEPARTMENT ARE DISMISSED. 10.3 KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENTS AS A FORESAID AND ALSO KEEPING IN VIEW THE CBDT INSTRUCTIONS DATED 31 .12.2015 ON 44 THE SUBJECT, AS CITED ABOVE, WE ALLOW BOTH THE APPE ALS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISS BOTH THE DEPARTMENT APPEALS. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 19/05/2017. SD/- SD/- (O.P. KANT) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JU DICIAL MEMBER DATED: 19/05/2017 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
