The ACIT, 2 (1), V. Shri Ashish Kumar Jodh,

ITSSA 131/IND/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9291 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-04-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 28-08-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K K SINGH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Loose papers; Period of limitation; Block assessment
• Section: 68; 145; 148; 132; 144; 11; 15

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI V.K. GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. IT(SS)A NO.131/IND/2008 AND 2. IT(SS)A NO.132/IND/2008 BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1989 TO 21.7.1999 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(1) BHOPAL APPELLANT VS 1. ASHISH KUMAR JODH BHOPAL 2. RAJENDRA KUMAR PATEL BHOPAL RESPONDENT 1. CO NO. 81/IND/2008 (ARISING OUT OF IT(SS)A NO.131/IND/2008) AND 2. CO NO. 82/IND/2008 (ARISING OUT OF IT(SS)A NO.132/IND/2008) 1. ASHISH KUMAR JODH BHOPAL 2. RAJENDRA KUMAR PATEL BHOPAL OBJECTORS VS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(1) BHOPAL RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI K.K. SINGH, CIT DR ASSESSEES BY : SHRI M.C. MEHTA WITH SHRI HITESH CHIMNANI 2 O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH, JM THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THE APPEALS AND THE ASSES SEES HAVE FILED THE PRESENT CROSS OBJECTIONS AGAINST DIFFEREN T ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) DATED 6.6.2008. FIRST WE SHALL TAKE UP THE A PPEALS OF THE REVENUE WHEREIN THE ONLY GROUND RAISED IS THAT THE LD. FIRS T APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ANNULLING THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORD ERS FRAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY HOLDING THAT THE PROCEEDINGS I NITIATED U/S 158BD ARE BAD IN LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY DELETING THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 4 LACS AND RS. 21 LACS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT/I NCOME U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 2. DURING HEARING OF THESE APPEALS, WE HAVE HEARD S HRI K.K. SINGH, LEARNED CIT DR AND SHRI M.C. MEHTA WITH SHRI HITESH CHIMNANI, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS O N BEHALF OF THE REVENUE IS IN SUPPORT TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY FU RTHER CONTENDING THAT THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT WAS ANNULLED BY THE LEARNED CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY GOOD REA SON. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES DEFEND ED THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY CONTENDING THAT NO SATISFACTION HAS BEEN R ECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO THE FINDINGS IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 3 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS PUT FORTH BY TH E LEARNED RESPECTIVE COUNSELS AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVA ILABLE ON FILE. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT SEARCH WAS CARRIED OUT ON 21.7.1999. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FILE THE BLOCK RETURN WITHIN THE PRESCRIBE D TIME. AS PER THE REVENUE, THE NOTICE WAS SERVED ON SHRI ANIL PARSAI ON 10.1.2003. AS PER THE REVENUE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE BLOCK RETURN, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE COPY OF ACKNOWLED GEMENT TO PROVE THAT THE BLOCK RETURN WAS FURNISHED. THE ASSESSEE F URNISHED A LETTER ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT DATED 14.12.2004 WHEREIN IT WA S CLAIMED THAT NO NOTICE U/S 158BD OF THE ACT DATED 30.12.2002, AS CL AIMED BY THE REVENUE, WAS EVER SERVED UPON HIM, THEREFORE, A FRE SH NOTICE U/S 158BD READ WITH SECTION 158BC FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD FROM 1 .4.1989 TO 21.7.1999 WAS ISSUED AS PER WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO F URNISH THE RETURN FOR THE ABOVE BLOCK PERIOD. THE ASSESSEE IN COMPLIA NCE FURNISHED THE RETURN ON 10.8.2005 DECLARING NIL UNDISCLOSED INCOM E. A FRESH NOTICE U/S 143A(2) ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE TO WHICH SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR PATEL, SHRI R.N. GUPTA, FCA, AT TENDED THE PROCEEDINGS. AS PER THE REVENUE, THE ASSESSEE WAS A REGULAR WORKER OF SHRI HARSHAD MEHTA CONCERN. SEARCH U/S 132 WAS CAR RIED IN THE CASE OF SHRI HARSHAD MEHTA GROUP ON 21.7.1999 WHEREIN CERTA IN ASSETS, DOCUMENTS INCLUDING CASH, JEWELLERY, FDRS, BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND LOOSE PAPERS, ETC. WERE FOUND. AS PER THE REVENUE , CERTAIN LOOSE 4 PAPER/DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND IN THE NAME OF M/S ANKIT & COMPANY OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS A PROPRIETOR, CONSEQUENTLY, N OTICE U/S 158BD WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF ANKIT & COMPANY, PROPRIETOR S HRI ASHISH KUMAR JODH. AS PER THE REVENUE, THERE WERE CLOSE BUSINES S TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH HARSHAD MEHTA GROUP, THEREFORE, IT WA S FELT THAT CERTAIN RECORDS/PAPERS WERE NEEDED TO BE EXAMINED. AS STAT ED ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD ON 2 6.4.2007 DISCLOSING UNDISCLOSED NIL INCOME. THE SHORT QUESTION IS WHETH ER THE ORDER WAS PASSED BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION PRESCRIBED U /S 158BE(2) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 158BD ON 30.12.2002, THEREFORE, THE LIMITATION FOR COMPLETING THE ASSESS MENT WAS AVAILABLE UPTO 31.12.2004. THE ASSESSING OFFICER KEPT THE CL AIMED LETTER OF THE ASSESSEE IN FILE AND DID NOT COMPLETE ANY ASSESSMEN T UPTO 31.12.2004 WHICH WAS THE LAST DATE OF LIMITATION FOR MAKING TH E ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH NOTICE U/S 158 DATED 30.12.2002 WAS ISSUED. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSMENT MADE ON 31.7 .2007 IS BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. THE ANOTHER QUESTION RAIS ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE SECOND NOTICE ISSUED ON 11.7.2005 WAS AN I LLEGAL ACTION, THEREFORE, SUCH ASSESSMENT IS UNLAWFUL. THE ANOTHE R CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A REGULAR INCOME T AX ASSESSEE AND HAD BEEN FILING RETURN MUCH PRIOR TO SEARCH FOR WHICH T HE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ALONG WITH COMPUTATION OF INCOME FO R THE ASSESSMENT 5 YEAR 1995-96, 1996-97 AND 1999-00 WERE FURNISHED BE FORE THE DEPARTMENT. THE RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999 -00 WAS FURNISHED ON 30.6.1999 WHEREAS SEARCH AT HARSHAD MEHTAS PLAC E WAS CONDUCTED ON 21.7.1999, THEREFORE, IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE RE TURN WAS FURNISHED PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SEARCH. IT IS ALSO AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, APART FROM COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCO ME AND THE ASSESSEE HAD REFLECTED/DISCLOSED THAT HE HAD TWO BANK ACCOUN TS NAMELY WITH BANK OF BARODA, HABIB GANJ, BHOPAL, AND DENA BANK, BHOPA L. WE HAVE ALSO FOUND THAT BEFORE THE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED A SPECIFIC G ROUND THAT THE ORDER WAS PASSED BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION AND ALSO CHALLENGED THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BD OF THE ACT. WE HAVE FOUND THAT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS) HAS ALREADY CONSIDERED THE DECISION IN MANISH MAHESHWAR I V. ACIT (2007) 208 CTR (SC) 97; 289 ITR 314(SC); CHHABRIA MARKETIN G LIMITED; 81 ITD 314; Y. SUBBARAJU V. ACIT; 91 ITD 118 (BANG) (SPL B ENCH), ETC. AND CONCLUDED THAT THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 15 8BD IS BAD, CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENT WAS ANNULLED. 4. BEFORE COMING TO ANY CONCLUSION, WE ARE REPRODUC ING HEREUNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT :- 6 158BD. WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO ANY PERSON, OTHER THA N THE PERSON WITH RESPECT TO WHOM SEARCH WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 132 OR WHOSE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR AN Y ASSETS WERE REQUISITIONED UNDER SECTION 132A , THEN, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQ UISITIONED SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVIN G JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON AND THAT ASSESS ING OFFICER SHALL PROCEED 13 [UNDER SECTION 158BC ] AGAINST SUCH OTHER PERSON AND THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER SHALL APP LY ACCORDINGLY . FOR COMPLETING THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT, TIME LIMITATIO N HAS BEEN PROVIDED U/S 158BE WHICH IS ALSO REPRODUCED HEREUNDER :- 158BE. 14 [(1) THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 158BC SHALL BE PASSED ( A ) WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHIC H THE LAST OF THE AUTHORISATIONS FOR SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OR FOR REQUISITION UNDER SECTION 132A , AS THE CASE MAY BE, WAS EXECUTED IN CASES WHERE A SEARCH IS INITIATED OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ANY ASSETS ARE REQUISITIONED AFTER THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 1995, BUT BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF JANUARY, 1997 ; ( B ) WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHI CH THE LAST OF THE AUTHORISATIONS FOR SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OR FOR REQUISITION UNDER SECTION 132A , AS THE CASE MAY BE, WAS EXECUTED IN CASES WHERE A SEARCH IS INITIATED OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ANY ASSETS ARE REQUISITIONED ON OR AFT ER THE 1ST DAY OF JANUARY, 1997. (2) THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR COMPLETION OF BLOC K ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF THE OTHER PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 158BD SHALL BE ( A ) ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE N OTICE UNDER THIS CHAPTER WAS SERVED ON SUCH OTHER PERSON IN RESPECT OF SEARCH INITIATED OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ANY ASSETS REQUISITIONED AFTER THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 1995, BUT BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF JANUARY, 1997; AND ( B ) TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE NOTICE UNDER THIS CHAPTER WAS SERVED ON SUCH OTHER PERSON IN RESPECT OF SEARCH INITIATED OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ANY ASSETS ARE REQUISITIONED ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF JANUAR Y, 1997.] 15 [ EXPLANATION 1. IN COMPUTING THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, ( I ) THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN G IS STAYED BY AN ORDER OR INJUNCTION OF ANY COURT; OR 7 ( II ) THE PERIOD COMMENCING FROM THE DAY ON WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER DIRECTS THE ASSESSEE TO GET HIS ACCOUNTS AU DITED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2A) OF SECTION 142 AND ENDING ON THE DAY ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO FURNISH A REPORT OF SUCH AUDIT UNDER THAT SUB-SECTION; OR ( III ) THE TIME TAKEN IN REOPENING THE WHOLE OR ANY PAR T OF THE PROCEEDING OR GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO BE RE-H EARD UNDER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 129 ; OR ( IV ) IN A CASE WHERE AN APPLICATION MADE BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION UNDER SECTION 245C IS REJECTED BY IT OR IS NOT ALLOWED TO BE PROCEEDED WITH BY IT, THE PERI OD COMMENCING ON THE DATE ON WHICH SUCH APPLICATION IS MADE AND ENDING WITH THE DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER UNDER S UB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 245D IS RECEIVED BY THE COMMISSIONER UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) OF THAT SECTION, SHALL BE EXCLUDED: PROVIDED THAT WHERE IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE EXCLUSION OF THE AFORESAID PERIOD, THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION REFERRE D TO IN SUB- SECTION (1) OR SUB-SECTION (2) AVAILABLE TO THE ASS ESSING OFFICER FOR MAKING AN ORDER UNDER CLAUSE ( C ) OF SECTION 158BC IS LESS THAN SIXTY DAYS, SUCH REMAINING PERIOD SHALL BE EXT ENDED TO SIXTY DAYS AND THE AFORESAID PERIOD OF LIMITATION S HALL BE DEEMED TO BE EXTENDED ACCORDINGLY.] 16 [ EXPLANATION 2. FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HEREBY DECLARED THAT THE AUTHORISATION REFERRED TO IN SUB- SECTION (1) SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN EXECUTED, ( A ) IN THE CASE OF SEARCH, ON THE CONCLUSION OF SEARCH AS RECORDED IN THE LAST PANCHNAMA DRAWN IN R ELATION TO ANY PERSON IN WHOSE CASE THE WARRANT OF AUTHORISATI ON HAS BEEN ISSUED; ( B ) IN THE CASE OF REQUISITION UNDER SECTION 132A ,, ON THE ACTUAL RECEIPT OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OT HER DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER.] SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT, PRESCRIBES ABOUT PROCEDUR E FOR BLOCK ASSESSMENT, IS AS UNDER :- 158BC. WHERE ANY SEARCH HAS BEEN CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 132 OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS ARE REQUISITIONED UNDER SECTION 132A , IN THE CASE OF ANY PERSON, THEN, 9 [( A ) THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ( I ) IN RESPECT OF SEARCH INITIATED OR BOOKS OF ACCOUN T OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ANY ASSETS REQUISITIONED AFTER T HE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 1995, BUT BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF JANUARY, 1997, SERVE A NOTICE TO SUCH PERSON REQUIR ING 8 HIM TO FURNISH WITHIN SUCH TIME NOT BEING LESS THAN FIFTEEN DAYS; ( II ) IN RESPECT OF SEARCH INITIATED OR BOOKS OF ACCOUN T OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ANY ASSETS REQUISITIONED ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF JANUARY, 1997, SERVE A NOTICE TO SUCH PERSON REQUIRING HIM TO FURNISH WITHIN SUCH TI ME NOT BEING LESS THAN FIFTEEN DAYS BUT NOT MORE THAN FORTY-FIVE DAYS, AS MAY BE SPECIFIED IN THE NOTICE A RETURN IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM 10 AND VERIFIED IN THE SAME MANNER AS A RETURN UNDER CLAUSE ( I ) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 , SETTING FORTH HIS TOTAL INCOME INCLUDING THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD : PROVIDED THAT NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 IS REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROCEEDING UNDER THIS CHAPTER : PROVIDED FURTHER THAT A PERSON WHO HAS FURNISHED A RETURN UNDER THIS CLAUSE SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO FILE A R EVISED RETURN;] ( B ) THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROCEED TO DETERMINE THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERIOD IN THE MANNE R LAID DOWN IN SECTION 158BB AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 142 , SUB-SECTIONS (2) AND (3) OF SECTION 143 11 [, SECTION 144 AND SECTION 145 ] SHALL, SO FAR AS MAY BE, APPLY; ( C ) THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ON DETERMINATION OF THE UN DISCLOSED INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERIOD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS CHAPTER, SHALL PASS AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT AND DETERMINE THE TAX PAYABLE BY HIM ON THE BASIS OF SU CH ASSESSMENT; 12 [( D ) THE ASSETS SEIZED UNDER SECTION 132 OR REQUISITIONED UNDER SECTION 132A SHALL BE DEALT WITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132B .] IF THE AFORESAID SECTIONS ARE ANALYSED AND KEPT IN JUXTA-POSITION, SECTION 158BD SAYS ABOUT SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO ANY PERSON, OTHER THA N THE PERSON WITH RESPECT TO WHOM SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED, U/S 132 OR WH OSE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ANY ASSET WERE REQUI SITIONED U/S 132A OF THE ACT, THEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, ETC. SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE 9 ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTH ER PERSON. SECTION 158BE OF THE ACT PRESCRIBES THE TIME LIMIT FOR COMP LETING THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT. A MAXIMUM PERIOD OF TWO YEARS HAS BEEN PRESCRIBED IN SUB-CLAUSE (B) TO CLAUSE (2) TO SECTION 158BE FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH SUCH NOTICE WAS SERVED ON SUCH OTHER PERSO N. HOWEVER, WE HAVE FOUND THAT REQUIRED SATISFACTION HAS NOT BEEN RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BD OF THE ACT. THUS, EXISTENCE OF MATERIAL IS A SINE QUA NON FOR T AKING ACTION U/S 158BD OF THE ACT. THE LAW REQUIRES THAT THERE MUST BE SAT ISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, COMPLETING SEARCH CASE TO COME T O A DEFINITE CONCLUSION THAT DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, HE H AS COME ACROSS CERTAIN INFORMATION WHICH LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION T HAT INCOME OF ANY OTHER PERSON HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IN THAT CASE, HE CAN DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTH ER PERSON TO ISSUE A NOTICE U/S 158BD. FOR THIS PURPOSE, THE SATISFACTI ON OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST BE CLEARLY SPELT OUT IN BLOCK ASSESSME NT ORDER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. THIS IS A MANDATORY REQUIREMENT. I N SPITE OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) REQUIR ING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PRODUCE PROOF OF SUCH SATISFACTION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT DO SO STATING THAT THE SAME WAS NOT REQUIRED IN WRITING. THIS HAS BEEN ELABORATELY DEALT WITH BY THE LEARNED COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THUS, IN VIEW OF THE DECISIONS MENTIONE D ABOVE, THE NOTICE 10 U/S 158BD DOES NOT FULFIL THE BASIC AND MANDATORY R EQUIREMENT OF LAW, THEREFORE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS) WAS QUITE JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THESE PROCEEDINGS AS INVALID. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THIS W ILL ALSO COVER THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR PATEL (IT(SS) A NO. 132/IND/2008, CONSEQUENTLY BOTH THESE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 5. IN THE CROSS OBJECTIONS, THE ASSESSEES HAVE CHAL LENGED THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS) TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ORDER U/S 158BD READ WITH SECTION 1 58BC OF THE ACT HAS NOT BEEN PASSED WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION PRE SCRIBED UNDER SUB- SECTION (2) OF SECTION 158BE OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, IT WAS PRAYED THAT THE ASSESSMENTS BE DECLARED AS NULL AND VOID. THE SEARC H IN THE GROUP CASES OF SHRI HARSHAD MEHTA AND CONCERNS ON 21.7.19 99. THE ASSESSMENT OF THE SEARCH CASES WAS COMPLETED ON 30. 7.2001 (DEMETER EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED) AND OF HARSHAD MEHTA 27.11 .2002 (WAS TREATED AS TIME BARRED BY ITAT). FIRST NOTICE U/S 158BD WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 31.12.2002/30.12.2002. NOTICE U/S 158B D WAS SERVED ON ANIL PARSAI ON 10.1.2003. AS PER THE ASSESSING OFF ICER, THE ASSESSEE FILED REPLY AND AFFIDAVIT DATED 14.12.2002, FOR NON SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 158BD, ON 15.12.2002. THE ASSESSEE DENIED HAVING F ILED REPLY DATED 14.12.2002 AND AFFIDAVIT FOR NON SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 158BD. ANOTHER 11 NOTICE U/S 158BD WAS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R ON 11.7.2005 TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN IN RESPONSE TO SECO ND NOTICE ON 10.8.2005 AND THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 31.7.2007. .HOWEVER, DURING HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE DID NOT PRESS THE CROSS OBJECTIONS. THEREFORE, WE REFRAIN OURSELV ES FROM DISPOSING OF THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE CROSS OBJECTIONS, CONSEQU ENTLY, THESE CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. RESULTANTLY, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENC E OF LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 12 TH APRIL, 2010. SD SD (V.K. GUPTA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER 12 TH APRIL, 2010 COPY TO: APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT, CIT(A), DR, G UARD FILE *DBN/