M/s Lakshmi traders, Kollam V. DCIT, Kollam

ITSSA 14/COCH/2002

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0630 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 12 year(s) 8 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 07-01-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 23-05-2002
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K K JOHN
• Assessee Lawyers: A S NARAYANAMOORTHY
• Keywords: Validity of assessment; Block assessment
• Section: 147; 145; 132; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JM AND CHANDRA POOJ ARI, AM I.T.(SS)A NO. 14/ COCH/2002 BLOCK PERIOD : 01/04/1988 TO 23/02/1999 M/S. LEKSHMI TRADERS, ABKARI CONTRACTORS, SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM. VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CIRCLE-1, KOLLAM. (ASSESSEE-APPELLANT) (REVENUE-RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI A.S. NARAYANAMOORTHY, CA REVENUE BY SHRI K.K. JOHN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 07/01/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12/02/2015 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 20-02- 2014 PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-III, TRIVANDRUM DATED 25/ 03/2002 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 01/04/1988 TO 23/02/1999. 2. THIS IS REMANDED CASE FROM HIGH COURT TO CONSIDE R THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE: THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR MAKING BLOCK ASSESSMENTS ARE MANDATORY AND SHOULD B E FULLY SATISFIED. WHEN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT OF A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON WHOSE PREMISES HAVE BEEN SEARCHED IS CARRIED OUT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSE SSING THE SEARCHED PERSON HAS TO RECORD HIS SATISFACTION THAT SOME UNDISCLOSED INCOM E BELONGED TO THE OTHER PERSON I.T.(SS)A. NO.14/COCH/2002 2 AND THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO HAND OVER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS AND ASSETS SEIZED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAVING JURISDICTION OF THAT OTHER PERSON. IN THE ASSESSEES CASE, THIS STATUTO RY REQUIREMENT HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH AND HENCE THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT IS IN VALID. 3.1 THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN ABKARI CONTRACTOR AND IT WAS ASSESSED AS AN AOP. A SEARCH ACTION U/S. 132 W AS CONDUCTED IN THE BUSINESS/RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE AOP, SHRI R.PRASAD ON 25/03/1999 AND OUT OF THE SEIZED MATERIALS/DOCUMENT S, IN SOME OF DOCUMENTS (A-29 & A-31), THE INFORMATION PERTAINED TO LEKSHMI TRADE RS AND LEKSHMI TRADERS WAS AN ASSESSEE UNDER THE CHARGE OF ITO, WARD-2, KOLLAM. AFTER THE SEARCH, JURISDICTION OVER THE CASES WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE CHARGE OF DC IT, INV., CIRCLE, KOLLAM VIDE NOTIFICATION DATED 16/11/1999. THE DCIT (INV.) CIRC LE INITIATED ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 158BD ON 13/12/ 1999. 3.2 THE ASSESSMENT WAS ORIGINALLY COMPLETED U/S. 1 58BC R.W.S. 158BD ON 28/12/2001 ON AN INCOME OF RS.13,03,36,970/- AFTER RECORDING SATISFACTION. AGAINST THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE ABOVE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 25/03/2002 C ONSIDERED THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL AND GRANTED RELIEF ON SOME OF THE GROUNDS. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE ITAT. WHEN THE CASE CAME UP FOR HEARING, THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTA TIVE SOUGHT PERMISSION OF THE TRIBUNAL TO URGE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS THAT AS THERE W AS NO SEARCH IN THE ASSESSEES I.T.(SS)A. NO.14/COCH/2002 3 PREMISES, THE NOTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED U/S. 1 58BC R.W.S. 158BD AND HENCE THE NOTICE IS INVALID AND ILLEGAL. 3.3 THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERED THE ADDITIONAL GROUND A ND VIDE ORDER DATED 27/2/2004 DECIDED THE APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSES SEE BY CANCELING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28/12/2001. AGAINST THIS ORDER, THE DE PARTMENT FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AND THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA V IDE ORDER DATED 12/11/2010 DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE BY UPHOL DING THE VALIDITY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED AND REMANDED THE MATTER BACK TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR FRESH DECISION ON MERITS. WHEN THE CASE CAME UP FOR HEARING, THE ASSESSEE REP RESENTATIVE AGAIN RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUND WITH REGARD TO THE VALIDITY OF TH E ASSESSMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE SATISFACTION AS REQUIRED U/S. 158BD WAS NOT REC ORDED. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 12/10/2012 DECIDED THE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSE E AS WELL AS BY THE DEPARTMENT ON MERIT ON THE BASIS OF MATERIALS AVAIL ABLE ON RECORD AND REFUSED TO ENTERTAIN THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSES SEE REGARDING VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT. AGAINST THIS ORDER OF THE ITAT REGARD ING REJECTION OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE ASS ESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AND THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA V IDE ORDER DATED 2 ND JULY, 2014 AGAIN REMANDED THE MATTER TO THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL T O CONSIDER THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE FINDINGS RENDERED BY THE HIGH COUR T OF KERALA HOLDING THAT IT IS UP TO THE TRIBUNAL TO CONSIDER THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAIS ED BY THE ASSESSEE AND TO TAKE APPROPRIATE DECISION AS PER LAW. I.T.(SS)A. NO.14/COCH/2002 4 4. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSING OF FICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON IS THE SAME AS THAT OF THE OTHER PERSON IN WHOSE CA SE EVIDENCE OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS UNEARTHED DURING THE SEARCH, THERE WAS N O NECESSITY TO RECORD ANY SATISFACTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE ISSUIN G NOTICE U/S. 158BD BECAUSE NO TRANSFER OF FILED FROM ONE OFFICE TO ANOTHER OFFICE R WAS INVOLVED AS HELD BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PA NCHAJANYAM MANAGEMENT AGENCIES & SERVICES REPORTED IN 333 ITR 281 (KER.). HOWEVER, THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE CASE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. AR ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. 4.1 THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE SEARCH WAS CONDUC TED IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES AND RESIDENCE OF ONE SHRI R.PRASAD, NOORAN AD, ALLEPPEY ON 23-02-1999. ACCORDING TO THE LD. AR, THE SEARCHED PERSON WAS A PARTNER IN THE ASSESSEE AOP AND THE SEARCHED PERSON WAS REGULARLY ASSESSED TO I NCOME TAX BY DCIT, CIRCLE-1, TRIVANDRUM. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT CONSEQUENT T O THE SEARCH, THE JURISDICTION OF THE SEARCHED PERSON SHRI PRASAD WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KOLLAM AND NOTICE U/S. 158BC WAS ISSUED TO THE SEARCHED PERSON BY THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KOLLAM ON 01-04-1999 AND BLOCK ASSESSMENT U/S. 158BC WAS C OMPLETED ON 28/02/2001. 4.2 THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE AOP WAS ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KOLLAM AND THE JURI SDICTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE INVESTIGATION CIRCLE-1, KOLLAM A N THEREAFTER TO THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, I.T.(SS)A. NO.14/COCH/2002 5 KOLLAM. ACCORDING TO THE LD. AR, NOTICE WAS ISSUE D U/S. 158BC R.W.S. 158BD ON 13/12/1999 BY DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KOLLAM AND THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE SAME ASSESSING OFFICER ON 28-02-2001. THUS, AC CORDING TO THE LD. AR, IT WAS CLEAR THAT EVEN WHEN NOTICE U/S. 158BC WAS ISSUED T O THE SEARCHED PERSON BY THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KOLLAM, THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASS ESSEE WAS WITH I.T.O., WARD-2, KOLLAM AND THIS PROVES BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AND THAT OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT THE SAME. THE CONCLUSION, HENCE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. AR WAS THAT THE DECISION OF TH E JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PANCHAJANYAM MANAGEMENT AGENCIES & SERVICES (333 ITR 281) ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE COURT IN THE ABOVE DECISION HELD THAT SATISFACTION REFERRED TO IN SECTION 158BD IS REQUIR ED FOR ASSESSING THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF A PERSON OTHER THAN THE ASSESSEE SEARCHED UNDER SECTION 132/INVESTIGATED U/S. 132A AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF T RANSFERRING THE FILE TO THE OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION TO ASSESS SUCH OTHER PERSON. A CCORDING TO THE LD. AR, THE COURT FURTHER HELD THAT IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE, THE DECI SION THAT NO SATISFACTION WAS REQUIRED TO BE RECORDED WAS ONLY ON THE PECULIAR FA CT BEFORE THEM, WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON ALSO HAPPE NED TO BE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE OTHER PERSON WHO WAS NOT SEARCHED BUT WITH R ESPECT TO WHOM RECORDS RELATING TO UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS DISCOVERED DURIN G SEARCH. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ASSESSEES CASE THE JURISDICTION WAS TR ANSFERRED FROM I.T.O., WARD-2, KOLLAM AND NOTICE U/S. 158BC R.W.S. 158BD WAS ISSUE D BY ANOTHER OFFICER DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KOLLAM. BEING SO, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED TH AT SINCE IN THE ASSESSEES CASE, I.T.(SS)A. NO.14/COCH/2002 6 THERE WAS A CLEAR TRANSFER OF FILES FROM ONE OFFICE R TO ANOTHER, THE FACTS OF THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF PANCHAJANYAM MANAGEMENT AGE NCIES AND SERVICES, CITED SUPRA ARE NOT APPLICABLE. THE LD. AR RELIED ON TH E FOLLOWING CASE LAW: I) MANISH MAHESWARI VS. ACIT (289 ITR 341) (SC). II)ACIT VS. A.R. ENTERPRISES (350 ITR 489) (SC). III)CIT VS. CALCUTTA KNITWEARS (362 ITR 673) (SC). IV)POOTHUNDA PLANTATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. AGRIC ULTURAL ITO (221 ITR 557) (SC). 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF LEKSHMI TRADERS, NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY THE DCIT, (INV.) CIRCLE, KOLLA M ON 13/12/1999 AND THE FILE OF LEKSHMI TRADERS WAS AGAIN TRANSFERRED TO THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KOLLAM VIDE NOTIFICATION OF THE CIT, TRIVANDRUM DATED 03/08/200 1. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KOLLAM COMPLETED THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF LEKSH MI TRADERS ON 28/12/2001. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, DURING THE PERI OD 16/11/1999 TO 03/08/2001, THE DCIT, INV. CIRCLE, KOLLAM HELD JURISDICTION OVE R BOTH THE FILES OF R. PRASAD AND LEKSHMI TRADERS. 5.1 THE LD . DR SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECIS ION OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN THE CASE OF PANCHAJANYAM MANAGEMENT AGENCIES & S ERVICES, (333 ITR 281), WHEREIN THE COURT HAVE DISTINGUISHED THE DECISION O F THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MANISH MAHESWARI VS. ACIT (289 ITR 341) WHICH HA S BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE I.T.(SS)A. NO.14/COCH/2002 7 ASSESSEE, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND FILED BY THE ASSESS EE HAS NO MERIT AND MAY BE DISMISSED. 5.2 MOREOVER, ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, FROM THE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 16/11/1999 IT CAN BE OBSERVED THAT THE JURISDICTION OVER THE FILE OF M/S. LEKSHMI TRADERS WAS TRANSFERRED FROM THE ITO, WARD-2, KOLLA M TO THE DCIT, INV. CIRCLE, KOLLAM, WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT. ON VERIFICATION, AC CORDING TO THE LD. DR, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE DATE OF NOTIFICATION MENTIONED AS 10/1/2000 IN PAGE 2 OF THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28/12/2001 IN THE CASE OF LE KSHMI TRADERS IS A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR. HENCE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE NOTICE DATED 13/12/1999 ISSUED BY THE DCIT , INV. CIRCLE, KOLLAM WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION IS NOT FACTUALLY CORRECT. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GON E THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BD WHICH STATES THAT WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON VERIFYING THE DOCUMENTS OR MATERIALS OBTAINED ON SEARCH MADE U/S. 132 OR BASED ON THE DOCUMENTS OR ACCOUNTS REQUISITIONED U/S. 132A IS SA TISFIED THAT SUCH RECORDS OR DOCUMENTS OR MATERIALS SEIZED REVEAL UNDISCLOSED IN COME OF ANY OTHER PERSON THAT IS OF ANY PERSON OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED ASSESSEE OR T HE ASSESSEE WHOSE ACCOUNTS OR DOCUMENTS ARE CALLED FOR, THEN HE SHALL HAND OVER A LL THOSE RECORDS PERTAINING TO SEARCH OR INSPECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVIN G JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON W HO IS TO BE ASSESSED BASED ON I.T.(SS)A. NO.14/COCH/2002 8 SUCH MATERIALS. IT IS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED THAT SU CH OTHER ASSESSING OFFICER TO WHOM THE FILE IS TRANSFERRED SHALL PROCEED FOR ASSESSMEN T U/S. 158BC AND PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XIVB ARE APPLICABLE FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT. T HIS IS ONLY AN ENABLING PROVISION TO ASSESS A PERSON OTHER THAN THE ASSESSEE SEARCHED OR OTHER THAN THE ASSESSEE WHOSE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND DOCUMENTS WERE CALLED F OR OF THE ACT. WHAT THE STATUTE VISUALIZES IS THE POSSIBILITY OF RECOVERY O F CASH, VALUABLES OR RECORDS IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH OF AN ASSESSEE WHICH MAY PERTAIN T O ANOTHER ASSESSEE OR OTHER ASSESSEES. IN THE NORMAL COURSE, AN ASSESSMENT IN SUCH CASES COULD BE INITIATED AGAINST SUCH OTHER ASSESSEE ABOUT WHOSE INCOME MATE RIALS ARE GATHERED BY THE DEPARTMENT BY MAKING INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT U/S . 147 OF THE ACT, WHICH IN MANY CASES, MAY BE TIME BARRED. IN ORDER TO SAFEGU ARD THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, THE LEGISLATURE GAVE ENABLING POWER TO THE DEPARTMENT OFFICERS TO MAKE ASSESSMENT ON PERSONS ABOUT WHOSE INCOME DETAILS AR E COLLECTED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH OF OTHER ASSESSEES. EVEN THOUGH SECTION 158B D IS AN ENABLING PROVISION AUTHORIZING THE DEPARTMENT TO ASSESS ANY PERSON OTH ER THAN THE SEARCHED ASSESSEE OR ASSESSEES AGAINST WHOM DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS ARE CALLED FOR, STILL ASSESSMENT IN SUCH CASE HAS TO BE COMPLETED STRICTLY IN ACCORDANC E WITH THE PROCEDURE PROVIDED U/S. 158BC AS STATED ABOVE. IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE RE IS NO MENTION IN SECTION 158BD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE TRANSFERRING THE FILE TO ANOTHER OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION TO ASSESS THE PERSON OTHER THAN THE AS SESSEE PROCEEDED U/S. 132 OR 132A HAS TO RECORD HIS SATISFACTION IN WRITING. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT WHEREVER ASSESSING OFFICERS ARE REQUIRED TO RECORD THEIR SAT ISFACTION BEFORE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE, I.T.(SS)A. NO.14/COCH/2002 9 THE STATUTE PRESCRIBES THE SAME. A SITUATION OF TH AT NATURE IS COVERED BY SECTION 148(2) WHICH REQUIRES THE OFFICER TO RECORD REASONS FOR REOPENING AN ASSESSMENT BEFORE ISSUING NOTICE. NOT ONLY THERE IS NO SUCH RE QUIREMENT IN SECTION 158BD BUT WHAT WE NOTICE IS THAT THE SATISFACTION REFERRED TO THEREIN IS ONLY ABOUT UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF A PERSON OTHER THAN THE ASSESSEE SEARCH U /S. 132 OR INVESTIGATED U/S. 132A OF THE I.T. ACT AND THE SATISFACTION IS ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRANSFERRING THE FILE TO THE OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION TO ASSESS S UCH OTHER PERSON. IN FACT, AFTER RECEIPT OF THE DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS FROM THE ASS ESSING OFFICER TRANSFERRING IT, THE OFFICER TO WHOM MATERIALS ARE TRANSFERRED SHOULD FO LLOW THE PROCEDURE U/S. 158BC, THAT IS TO ISSUE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE REQUIRING H IM TO FILE RETURN IN FORM 2B AND TO MAKE REGULAR ASSESSMENT AFTER FOLLOWING THE PROCEDU RE CONTAINED IN SECTION 142, AND IF REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE IN SECTIONS 143(2) AND (3), 144 AND 145 OF THE ACT. SO MUCH SO, NON-RECORDING OF REASON AND N ON-COMMUNICATION OF THE SAME BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE ISSUING NOTICE U/S. 158BC WILL NOT INVALIDATE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S. 158BD R.W.S. 158BC. IN F ACT WHEN RECORDS ARE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM ANOTHER OFFICER U/S. 158BD, HE BAS TO ONLY ISSUE NOTICE TO FILE RETURN IN FORM 2B. THE REASONS AND MATERIA LS BASED ON WHICH UNDISCLOSED INCOME IS PROPOSED TO BE ASSESSED SHOULD BE COMMUNI CATED 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 OPERATIO N OF SECTION 142, EVERY ASSESSEE ASSESSED UNDER SECTIONS 158BC & 158BD GETS AN OPPOR TUNITY TO FILE OBJECTIONS. IN OTHER WORDS, THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT IS NOT AFFECTED BY REASON OF THE I.T.(SS)A. NO.14/COCH/2002 10 ASSESSING OFFICERS FAILURE TO RECORD HIS SATISFACT ION U/S. 158BD WHICH IS ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRANSFERRING THE FILE AND ONCE THE FILE IS TRANSFERRED, THE TRANSFERRING OFFICER BECOMES FUNCTUS OFFICIO AND THE JURISDICTIO N FOR ALL PURPOSES IS TRANSFERRED TO THE OFFICER TO WHOM THE FILE IS TRANSFERRED AND WHO HAS JURISDICTION TO ASSESS THE ASSESSEE ABOUT WHOM DETAILS ARE OBTAINED IN THE COU RSE OF SEARCH OF ANOTHER ASSESSEE. 6.1 THE FILES IN THE CASE OF SHRI R.PRASAD AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE WERE TRANSFERRED TO DCIT, INV. CIRCLE-1, KOLLAM VIDE NOTIFICATION NO . 125(1)/ADM/99-2000(S) DATED 16/11/1999. IN OTHER WORDS, BY THIS NOTIFICATION, T HE FILES WERE CENTRALIZED WITH DCIT, INV. CIRCLE-1, KOLLAM AND BOTH THE PERSON SEA RCHED AS WELL AS OTHER THAN PERSON SEARCHED FELL WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF DCI T, INV.CIRCLE-1, KOLLAM. BEING SO, IN THIS CASE, THE PERSON WHO HAS ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S. 158BD TO THE ASSESSEE IS NONE OTHER THAN THE PERSON HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE SEARCHED PERSON U/S. 132 OF THE I.T. ACT. BEING SO, ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 15 8BD R.W.S. 158BC IS SUFFICIENT FOR INITIATION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH IN THIS CASE IS ADMITTEDLY DONE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME IN FORM 2B IN T ERMS OF NOTICE ISSUED. THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE IS SIMILAR TO ONE CONSIDERED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PANCHAJANYAM MANAGEMENT AGENCIE S & SERVICES REPORTED IN 333 ITR 281 (KER.). THUS, THE INITIATION OF ASSESSMENT BY THE DEPARTMENT BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S. 158BD IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSEE IS CON FIRMED. THE LD. AR TRIED TO DISTINGUISH THE JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, CITED SUPRA BY STATING THAT I.T.(SS)A. NO.14/COCH/2002 11 AS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ASSESSM ENT ORDER, THE FILE WAS TRANSFERRED TO INVESTIGATION CIRCLE, KOLLAM AS PER ORDER OF THE CIT, TRIVANDRUM IN C.NO.125(1)/ADM/99-2000(S) DATED 10-01-2000 AND THE NOTICE U/S. 158BC R.W.S. 158BD OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED PRIOR TO THIS ON 13/12/ 1999 AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 16.12.1999. ACCORDING TO THE LD. AR, THE JURIS DICTION OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AND OTHER THAN SEARCHED PERSON LIES WITH DIFFERENT ASSESSING OFFICERS AND RECORDING OF SATISFACTION IS MUST TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S. 158BD OF THE I.T. ACT. IN OUR OPINION, THE MENTIONING OF REFERENCE NO. C. NO. 125(1)/ADM/99-20 00(S) IS CORRECT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HOWEVER, THE DATE MENTIONED AS 10 -01-2000 IS A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR. ACTUALLY SEEN FROM THE NOTIFICATION, THE DA TE IS 16/11/1999 WHICH IS PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 158BD R.W.S. 158BC OF T HE ACT ON 13/12/1999. BEING SO, THE LD. AR CANNOT PLACE RELIANCE ON THE TYPOGRAPHIC AL ERROR COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS ADDITIONAL GROUND OF THE A SSESSEE IS DISMISSED. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE FINAL FINDING OF THE EARL IER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12-02-2015 SD/- SD/- (N.R.S.GANESAN) (CHANDRA POOJARI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACC OUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: KOCHI DATED: 12 TH FEB 2015 I.T.(SS)A. NO.14/COCH/2002 12 COPY TO: 1. M/S. LEKSHMI TRADERS, ABKARI CONTRACTORS, SASTHA MKOTTA, KOLLAM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOLLAM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-III,TRIV ANDRUM 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TRIVANDRUM. 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) I.T.A.T., COC HIN