The DCIT, Circle-2, Ahmedabad V. Patel Amratlal Somabhai & Co., Ahmedabad

ITSSA 16/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8844 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 15-10-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 18-01-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K DHANESTA
• Assessee Lawyers: PF JAIN
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Block assessment; Reason to believe
• Section: 143(3); 147; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD AHMEDABAD A BENCH BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGARWAL, VICE-PRESIDENT (AZ) AND SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS)A NO.16/AHD/2008 [BLOCK PERIOD FROM 1-4-95 TO 17-7-01] DCIT, CIRCLE-2, 2 ND FLOOR, -VS- M/S. PATEL AMRATBHAI SOMABHAI INSURANCE BUILDINGS, ASHRAM ROAD & CO. 1, ZAVERI CH AMBERS, AHMEDABAD VAGHAN POLE, RATANPOLE, AHMEDABAD PAN NO.AACFP0580E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO.266/AHD/2010 (ARISING OUT IT(SS)A NO.16/AHD/2008) M/S. PATEL AMRATBHAI SOMABHAI & CO. VS- DCIT, CIRC LE-2, ZAVERI CHAMBERS, VAGHAN POLE, AHMEDABAD RATANPOLE, AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY :SHRI R.K. DHANESTA, DR ASSESSEE BY:SHRI P.F. JAIN , AR O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION (CO) BY ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-V III, AHMEDABAD IN APPEAL NO. CITAVII/CIR.2/34/2006-07. THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ACIT, CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD U/S158BD R.W.S. 158BC R.W.S. 143(3) OF TH E INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE HIS ORD ER DATED 22-09-2006. 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI P.F. JAIN RAISED THE APPEAL UNDER APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963, VIDE R ULE 27 THAT HE IS CHALLENGING THE IT(SS)A NO.16/AHD/2008 B.P.1/4/95 TO 17/7/01 DCIT CIR-2 ABD V. M/S. PATEL AMRATBHAI SAMABHAI & CO. PAGE 2 VALIDITY OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S.158BD OF TH E ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THIS ISSUE WAS RAISED BEFORE T HE LOWER AUTHORITIES BUT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSE SSEE. WE FIND THAT THE RESPONDENT THOUGH HE MAY NOT HAVE APPEALED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) REASON BEING THE SAME IS ALLOWED ON MERITS, MAY SUPPORT TH E ORDER APPEALED AGAINST ON THE GROUND DECIDED AGAINST HIM ON LEGAL ISSUE. ACCORDIN GLY, WE PERMIT THE ASSESSEE TO RAISE THIS PLEA UNDER RULE 27 OF THE APPELLATE TRIB UNAL RULES, 1963. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BRIEF THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH UNDER THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANAGEMENT ACT (FEMA FOR SHORT ) ON THE LUGGAGE VAN OF ASHRAM EXPRESS ON 09-07-2001, CONSEQUENT TO WHICH C ASH OF RS.31 LAKH BELONGING TO ASSESSEE WAS SEIZED. THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS AGAI NST, SHRI JAGDISH GURJAR AND PRABHASHANKAR JADAV WERE INITIATED BY THE REVENUE ON 24-07-2002. THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT U/S.158BC OF THE ACT WAS FRAMED IN THE C ASE OF SHRI JAGDISH GURJAR AND PRABHASHANKAR JADAV VIDE ORDER DATED 31-07-2003. SU BSEQUENTLY, THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD VIDE LETTER DATED 30-07-2004 INITIATED PROCEEDINGS U/S.158BD OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE I. E., M/S. AMRATBHAI SOMABHAI ANGADIA SERVICE, PROP. SHRI AMRATBHAI PATEL AND NOT ICE U/S.158BD WAS ISSUED VIDE DATED 14-09-2004. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, SIN CE THERE WAS NO SUCH ENTITY, THE PROCEEDINGS OF 158BD WAS CANCELLED AND SUBSEQUENTLY NOTICE IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ISSUED U/S 158BD OF THE ACT VIDE DATED 13-04-2006. ACCORDING TO LD COUNSEL NOTICE U/S.158BD WAS ISSUED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON 13-04-2006, AND THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT U/S.158BC IN THE CASE OF S EARCHED PARTY, NAMELY, SHRI JAGDISH GURJAR AND PRABHASHANKAR JADAV WERE COMPLET ED ON 31-07-2003. ACCORDING TO LD COUNSEL THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF T HE ASSESSEE FRAMED U/S.158BD IS BARRED BY LIMITATION AS HELD BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN IT(SS)A NO.165 & 196/AHD/2006 IN THE CASE OF M/S. RAJESH KUMAR RAMESH & CO. DATED 03-07-2009 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE ARISING OUT OF THE S AME SEARCH ACTION CONDUCTED U/S.37(3) OF THE FEMA BY THE ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORAT E ON LUGGAGE VAN OF ASHRAM EXPRESS ON 09-07-2001, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS HEL D AS PARA-2 TO 6 UNDER:- 2. THE FIRST LEGAL ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE IS AS REGARDS TO THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED A GROUND THAT THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. FOR THIS, THE A SSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING LEGAL GROUNDS, WHICH READ AS UNDER:- IT(SS)A NO.16/AHD/2008 B.P.1/4/95 TO 17/7/01 DCIT CIR-2 ABD V. M/S. PATEL AMRATBHAI SAMABHAI & CO. PAGE 3 1. IN LAW AND IN FACTS AS WELL AS CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANTS CASE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS GR OSSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDE R SECTION 158BD READ WITH SECTION 143(3) AND 144 OF THE I.T. ACT WITH THE PRE VIOUS APPROVAL OF ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL RANGE-1, AHMEDAB AD IS NOT BAD IN LAW. 1.1.1 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEA LS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED, INTER-ALIA, THAT (A) THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 158BD DOES NOT SPEAK ANYTHING ABOUT SEARCH HAVING BEEN CARRIED OUT BY TH E INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT IN PURSUANCE OF THE AUTHORIZATION ISSUED UNDER SECTION 132(1) OF THE I.T. ACT NOR DOES IT MENTION ANYTHING WHETHE R THE SEIZED MATERIAL WAS REQUISITIONED IN TERMS OF SECTION 132A OF THE I .T. ACT AND IF SO BY WHOM AND WHEN AND IN WHOSE CASE. THEREFORE, THE NOT ICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 158BD IS WITHOUT JURISDICTIO N AND BAD IN LAW. ACCORDINGLY, THE PRESENT ORDER FINALIZED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER US. 158BD READ WITH SECTION 143(3) AND 144 OF THE I.T. ACT IS AB INITIO VOID AND DESERVES TO BE CANCELLED. (B) (C) 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSE SSEE BRIEFLY STATED THE FACT THAT A SEARCH ACTION U/S. 37(3) OF FEMA ACT, 1999 W AS CARRIED OUT BY THE ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE ON THE LUGGAGE VAN OF ASHRA M EXPRESS ON 9-7-2001 TAKEN ON LEASE BY SHRI JADISH GUJAR AND PRABHU G JA DHAV. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF ANGADIA. THE SEARCH OF B AGGAGES/PARCELS SIN THE LUGGAGE VAN RESULTED INTO SEIZURE OF VALUABLES LIKE INDIAN CURRENCY, GOLD BISCUITS SILVER BARD, DIAMONDS, JEWELLERY (IMPORTED ) ETC. THE CASH, BULLION AND JEWELLERY WORTH RS.3,34,89,705/- WERE SEIZED AND IN VENTORIED VIDE PANCHNAMAS DONE BY ED OFFICIALS SEPARATELY IN THE N AMES OF VARIOUS AGADIAS FROM WHOSE BAGGAGE THE SEIZED ASSETS WERE FOUND. TH E ASSESSEE WAS ONE OF THEM AND ACCORDINGLY, PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BD OF THE ACT WAS INITIATED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DATED 21-0- 2004 DECLARING UNDISCLOSED INCOME AT NIL IN RESPONS E TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 158BD DATED 12-4-2004, WHICH WAS SERVED ON 17-4-200 4. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND IN THE BLOCK RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED HAT OUT OF CASH OF RS.35,54,0 00/- OWNED UP BY IT, RS.35,00,000/- WAS ITS OWN AND RS.54,000/- WERE BEL ONGING TO OTHER PARTY AND WAS BEING TRANSPORTED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ITS BEHALF IN THEREFORE, CAPACITY OF ITS BUSINESS AS ANGADIA. SIMILARLY, IN RESPECT OF J EWELLERY/VALUABLES TOTALING TO RS.40,57,064/- OWNED DUP BY THE ASSESSEE, HE IDENTI FIED 17 PARTIES ON BEHALF OF WHOM THESE JEWELLERY/VALUABLES WERE TRANSPORTED IN THE CAPACITY OF ITS BUSINESS AS ANGADIA. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE LE ARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT BLOCK ASSESSMENT U/S.158BC OF THE ACT WAS FRAMED IN THE CASE OF JADISH GAJJAR AND PRABHU G JADHAV ON31- 7-2003 AND SUBSEQUENTLY NOTICE U/S.158BD WAS ISSUED TO THE ASS ESSEE ON 17-4-2004. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE STATED THAT THE NOTICE U/S.158 BC R.W.S. 158BD OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 17 -04-2004 IS BARRED BY LIMITATION IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF IT(SS)A NO.16/AHD/2008 B.P.1/4/95 TO 17/7/01 DCIT CIR-2 ABD V. M/S. PATEL AMRATBHAI SAMABHAI & CO. PAGE 4 MANOJ AGGARWAL V. DCIT (2008) 113 ITD 377 (DEL. WE FID FROM THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE BY THE DECISION OF ITAT DELHI SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF MANOJ AGGARWAL (SUPRA), WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD ON THIS ISSUE, THAT A SATISFACTION HAS TO BE RECORD ED HERE AS UNDER AND DEALT WITH ISSUE IN PARA-113 TO 116 AS UNDER:- 113. SECTION 158BD COMMENCES WITH THE WORDS WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BE LONGS TO ANY PERSON, OTHER THAN THE PERSON WITH RESPECT TO WHOM SEARCH W AS MADE AND THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER ASSESSING THE PERSON SEARCHED IS THE FIRST AND FOREMOST REQUI REMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN ARRIVE AT THIS SATISFACTION O NLY AFTER ASCERTAINING WHETHER THERE IS ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME AT ALL AND THIS FINDING CAN BE ARRIVED AT BY HIM ONLY IN THE COURSE OF THE SECTION 158BD ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. THEREAFTER, HE HAS TO ARRIVE AT A FINDI NG AS TO THE PERSON TO WHOM SUCH INCOME BELONGS. THIS FINDING ALSO CAN BE ARRIVED AT ONLY IN THE COURSE OF THE SECTION 158BC PROCEEDING IN THE C ASE OF THE PERSON SEARCHED. HE MAY FIND THAT PART OF THE SAID UNDISCL OSED INCOME BELONGS TO THE PERSON SEARCHED AND THE REST BELONGS TO OTHER PERSON OR PERSONS. AT THIS STAGE, HE HAS TO GIVE A FINDING IN THIS BEHALF AS TO WHICH OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO THE PERS ON TO WHOM THE REST OF THE INCOME BELONGS. THIS FINDING TOO HAS TO BE ARRIVED AT IN THE COURSE OF THE SECTION 158BC PROCEEDING. AFTER ARRIV ING AT THIS FINDING, HE MAKES AN ASSESSMENT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME RE LATING TO THE PERSON SEARCHED IN HIS HANDS AND HANDS OVER THE MAT ERIAL RELATING TO THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGING TO THE OTHER PERSO N OR PERSONS TO THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS SECTION 158BC PRO CEEDING IS SPECIFICALLY INTENDED FOR DETERMINING THE UNDISCLOS ED INCOME, THE MATERIAL UNEARTHED HAS TO BE EXAMINED IN THE COURSE OF THE SAID PROCEEDING AND IF SUCH EXAMINATION SHOWS THAT THE U NDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO SOME OTHER PERSONS A FINDING IN THIS BEH ALF HAS TO BE RECORDED IN THE COURSE OF THE SECTION 158BC PROCEED ING AS SUCH FINDING HAS TO FORM AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE SAID PR OCEEDING AND IN CONFORMITY WITH THE INTENTION BEHIND THE SAID PROVI SION. SO, IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT SUCH FINDING HAS TO FORM PART OF THE SECTION 158BC PROCEEDING AND SO MUST FIND A PLACE IN THE ORDER UN DER SECTION 158BC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSING THE PERSON SEARCHED HAS TO GIVE A FINDING ON EACH AND EVERY MATERIAL AND EVIDENCE UNE ARTHED AFTER A CAREFUL AND JUDICIOUS EVALUATION AND SUCH EXERCISE INVOLVES A FINDING THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO A SPECIFIED PERSON AS FOUND BY HIM ON THE SECTION 158BD PROCEEDING REVOLVES. IF, T HEREFORE, IN THE COURSE OF THE SECTION 158BC PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER ASSESSING THE PERSON SEARCHED DOES NOT GIVE A FINDI NG THAT ANY PART OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME UNEARTHED BELONGS TO A PERSO N OTHER THAN THE PERSON SEARCHED, SECTION 158BD CAN NEVER BE INVOKED . IT IS THIS FINDING THAT IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF BOTH THE PROCEE DINGS WHETHER UNDER SECTION 15BC OR 158BD. FOR, SUCH FINDING DETERMINE S IN WHOSE HANDS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME UNEARTHED HAS TO BE TAXED. I F THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO THE PERSON SEARCHED, HE IS SUBJEC TED TO BLOCK IT(SS)A NO.16/AHD/2008 B.P.1/4/95 TO 17/7/01 DCIT CIR-2 ABD V. M/S. PATEL AMRATBHAI SAMABHAI & CO. PAGE 5 ASSESSMENT ON SUCH INCOME UNDER SECTION 158BC BUT I F SUCH INCOME OR PART OF SUCH INCOME BELONGS TO A PERSON NOT SEAR CHED, SECTION 158BD TAKES OVER. THIS IS THE ESSENCE OF THE ENTIRE ENACTMENT RELATING TO SEARCH. 114. SECTION 158BE PROVIDES FOR TIME LIMIT FOR COMP LETION OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT. IT STIPULATES THAT THE ORDER UNDER SEC TION 158 BC SHALL BE PASSED WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH I N WHICH THE LAST OF THE AUTHORIZATION FOR SEARCH UNDER SECTION132 WAS EXECUTED OR FOR REQUISITION UNDER SECTION 132A AS THE CASE MAY BE A ND SO THE ORDER ENVISAGED UNDER SECTION 158BC HAS NECESSARILY TO BE PASSED WITHIN THIS TIME FRAME SET IN LAW. IF THERE IS A TIME-LIMI T FOR PASSING OF SUCH ORDER, THERE IS AN IMPLIED TIME-LIMIT FOR GIVING A FINDING AS TO THE PERSON TO WHOM THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS WHICH UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES CAN BE BEYOND THE TIME-LIMIT SET IN S ECTION 158BE. IF THERE IS NO SUCH FINDING GIVEN IN THE ORDER UNDER S ECTION 158BC, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BD STAND OUSTED AT THE EXP IRY OF THE SAID TIME- LIMIT FOR THE REASON THAT SUCH A FINDING IS THE VER Y BASIS FOR INVOKING SECTION 158BD. 115. SECTION 158BD AS SAID EARLIER BEGINS WITH THE EXPRESSION WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED AND SO VERY SEC TION IMPLIES A RECORDING OF SATISFACTION. THE SATISFACTION CONTE MPLATED IS A JUDICIOUS SATISFACTION AND NOT A SUBJECTIVE SATISFACTION AND UNLESS THE SAME IS RECORDED IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR ANY PERSON TO DISCE RN WHETHER THE SATISFACTION MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF LAW AT ALL. THE SATISFACTION CAN BE FOUND IN THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 158BC AN D IF NO SUCH ORDER IS PASSED THEN IT WILL HAVE TO BE FOUND IN THE NOTE HANDING OVER THE MATERIAL SEIZED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSING THE OTHER PERSON. IN ANY EVENT, IT HAS TO BE IN WRITING AND IN VIEW OF S ECTION 158BE, THE SAID RECORDING HAS TO BE MADE BEFORE THE TIME SET IN SEC TION 158BE EXPIRES. AFTER THE SAID DATE, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO INVOKE S ECTION 158BD AT ALL. 116. A VIEW IS EXPRESSED THAT WHEREVER A TIME-LIMI T IS INTENDED, THE PARLIAMENT HAS PROVIDED FOR THE SAME AND IN THE ABS ENCE OF A SPECIFIC PROVISION MADE IN THIS RESPECT IT HAS TO BE ASSUMED THAT THERE IS NO TIME-LIMIT INTENDED IN LAW. IT HAS TO BE REMEMBERED THAT THE MATER RELATES TO FIXING HUGE FINANCIAL AND OTHER CIVIL LI ABILITY ON THE PERSON AFFECTED AND IT HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY HELD THAT THERE MUST BE A FINALITY TO ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THE ACT AND THAT A CONCLUDED P ROCEEDING CANNOT BE REOPENED AT THE WHIM AND FANCY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW. STRICT INTERPRETATION OF FISCA L STATUTES IS THE ORDER OF THE DAY AND AS THE PROVISIONS FOR SEARCH ARE DRACON IAN IN NATURE SUCH PROVISIONS HAVE NECESSARILY TO BE STRICTLY CONSTRUE D. IT WILL HAVE TO BE REMEMBERED THAT SECTION 158BD PROVIDES FOR INVOKING JURISDICTION UNDER THE SAID SECTION ENABLING THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ASSESSING THE OTHER PERSON IN RESPECT OF WHOM THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ASSESSING THE PERSON SEARCHED GIVES A FINDING THAT THE UNDISCLOSE D INCOME UNEARTHED AS A RESULT OF SEARCH BELONGS TO THE SAID PERSON AN D ONCE SUCH A FINDING IS GIVEN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BD CO ME INTO OPERATION. IT(SS)A NO.16/AHD/2008 B.P.1/4/95 TO 17/7/01 DCIT CIR-2 ABD V. M/S. PATEL AMRATBHAI SAMABHAI & CO. PAGE 6 THIS, THEREFORE, INVOLVES ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTIO N AND CANNOT BE CONSTRUCTED AS A PROCEDURAL MATTER. IN THE ABSENCE OF A FINDING IN THIS BEHALF, THERE IS NO JURISDICTION TO THE OTHER ASSES SING OFFICER AT ALL TO PROCEED FURTHER IN THE MATTER. AS THE TIME-LIMIT S ET IN SECTION 158BE APPLIES TO SUCH FINDING, IT IS ONLY LOGICAL THAT TH E SAID TIME-LIMIT AUTOMATICALLY APPLIES FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 158BD AND IT IS FOR THIS REASON THAT THE PARLIAMENT DID NOT F IND IT NECESSARY TO SPECIFY A SEPARATE TIME-LIMIT FOR THE SAME, AS THE ENACTMENT ITSELF SHOWS THAT BOTH SECTIONS 158BC AND 158BD ARE INTER- LINKED, INTERLACED AND INTER-WINDED AND BOTH FORM PART AND PARCEL OF T HE SAME CHAPTER. 4. FURTHER AS REGARDS TO THE LIMITATION FOR ISSUANC E OF NOTICE U/S 158BD OF THE ACT, THE SPECIAL BENCH IN MANOJ AGGARWAL (SUPRA) IN PARA 123 TO 127 HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 123 . HAVING HELD THAT RECORDING OF SATISFACTION IS IMPE RATIVE BEFORE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 158BD, WE MAY NOW TURN TO EXAMINE THE MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION WHERE THE AS SESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED APPEARING AT THE BEGINNING OF SECTION 15 8BD FOR THE MEANING SO ASCERTAINED GIVES US A CLUE AS TO THE NATURE OF THE NOTE OF SATISFACTION THAT IS ENVISAGED IN THE SAID SECTION. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE APPELLANT THAT S UCH SATISFACTION MUST CLEARLY SHOW DETECTION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON EXA MINATION OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL AS BELONGING TO THE PERSON NOT SEAR CHED AND THAT IT CANNOT BE BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS AND SURMISES OR GUES SWORK. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ARGUED THAT THE TERM SATISFACTION APPEARS IN VARIOUS PARTS OF THE ACT ITSELF AND THAT EVEN IN SECTION 147/148 DEALING WITH CASES OF REASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSING INCOME WHICH HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, THE ONLY REQUI REMENT IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE T HAT THERE IS A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF EXISTENCE OF ESCAPED INCOME AND THAT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT THERE MUST BE A CLEAR FINDING OF U NDISCLOSED INCOME AS SUGGESTED. IN THIS CONTEXT, REFERENCE HAS BEEN M ADE TO THE APEX COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS (P.) LTD. 291 ITR 500 WHEREIN THE TERM REASON TO BELIEVE HA S BEEN INTERPRETED AND THE APEX COURT HELD THEREIN THAT WHAT IS REQUI RED IS REASON TO BELIEVE BUT NOT THE ESTABLISHED FACT OF ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. AT THE STAGE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE, THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHET HER THERE WAS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON WHICH A REASONABLE PERSON COUL D HAVE FORMED THE REQUISITE BELIEF. WHETHER MATERIAL WOULD CONCLUSIVE LY PROVE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME IS NOT THE CONCERN AT THAT STA TE. THIS IS SO BECAUSE THE FORMATION OF THE BELIEF IS WITHIN THE R EALM OF THE SUBJECTIVE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS THERE FORE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE RECORDING OF SATISFACTION IT IS ENOUGH IF A PRI MA FACIE CASE IS MADE OUT. 124. IT IS TRUE THAT THE TERM REASON TO BELIEVE H AS CAME TO BE JUDICIALLY INTERPRETED EVEN SINCE THE PROVISION FOR REASSESSME NT WAS INTRODUCED IT(SS)A NO.16/AHD/2008 B.P.1/4/95 TO 17/7/01 DCIT CIR-2 ABD V. M/S. PATEL AMRATBHAI SAMABHAI & CO. PAGE 7 IN THE ACT AND SO THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE APEX CO URT IN THE DECISION CITED SUPRA IS IN TUNE WITH ITS OWN EARLIER DECISIO NS. BUT, THE POINT THAT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED IS WHETHER THE USE OF THE TERM REASON TO BELIEVE AND SATISFACTION HAVE THE SAME MEANING WHEREVER T HE SAID TERMS ARE USED DE HORS THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THE SAID TERM APP EARS? THE TERM REASON TO BELIEVE, AS THE APEX COURT HELD, IMPLIE S THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBJECTIVELY BELIEVES THAT HE HAS REASON TO BELIEVE ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL BEFORE HIM THAT THERE IS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE AND SO THAT ESCAPED INCOME HAS TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX BY RE-OPENING HIS ASSESSMENT AS PER THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 147/148 OF THE ACT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE TERM SA TISFACTION IN SECTION 158BD CONNOTES THAT THERE EXISTS UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND THAT SUCH UNDISCLOSED INCOME IS THAT OF THE PERSON NOT SEARCH ED. THE USE OF THE EXPRESSION SATISFIED IN SECTION 158BD CANNOT BE R EAD IN ISOLATION AND IT HAS TO BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THE SAID TERM APPEARS IN THE SAID SECTION. IT WILL BE SEEN THAT SECTION 158B D STARTS WITH THE EXPRESSION WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIE D THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO ANY PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON WITH RESPECT TO WHOM SEARCH WAS MADE. . .. IT IS SIGNIF ICANT THAT THE TERM SATISFIED IS NOT USED IN A VACUUM BUT ALONG WITH THE WORDS THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO. . . OTHER THAN THE P ERSON WITH RESPECT TO WHOM SEARCH WAS MADE.. AND THE WORDS IN THE CONTEX T ARE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND BELONGS TO WHICH CLEARLY INDICATE THAT AT THAT POINT OF TIME WHEN SATISFACTION IS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME IS TO BE IDENTIFIED. FURTHER, TH E SAID EXPRESSION DOES NOT STOP THERE. IT FURTHER USES THE EXPRESSION BELONGS TO ANY PERSON, OTHER THAN THE PERSON WITH RESPECT TO WHOM SEARCH WAS MADE WHICH INDICATES THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME IDENTIF IED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS FOUND TO BE BELONGING TO THE OTHER PERSO N. IT WOULD THUS MEAN THAT AT THE STAGE OF RECORDING, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS REACHED A FINDING THAT UNDISCLOSED INCOME HAS BEEN DETECTED A S A RESULT OF SEARCH AND ALSO FURTHER THAT SUCH INCOME BELONGS TO THE PERSON NOT SEARCHED. ALL THESE CONSTITUTE FINDINGS AND NOT A M ORE BELIEF HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE EXAMINATION OF THE SEI ZED MATERIAL AND HENCE THE SATISFACTION CONTEMPLATED IN SECTION 158B D IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAN CONTEMPLATED IN SECTION 147. IT IS FUNDAMENTAL THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FINDS OUT WHETHER THERE IS UNDISCLOSED INCO ME. IF HE FINDS THAT THERE EXISTS UNDISCLOSED INCOME, THEN HE HAS TO GIV E A FINDING AS TO WHOM THE SAID INCOME BELONGS. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUC H A FINDING, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO CONCLUDE A BLOCK ASSESSMENT UNDER S ECTION 158BC. ONLY THEREUPON, THE SECTION 158BD PROCEEDING IN RES PECT OF THE OTHER PERSON FOR MAKING A SIMILAR BLOCK ASSESSMENT OF SUC H UNDISCLOSED INCOME WOULD COMMENCE. HENCE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIE W, THE NOTE OF SATISFACTION MUST CONTAIN A POSITIVE FINDING BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAKING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 158BC INDICATIN G THEREIN THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOUND AS A RESULT OF HIS EXAMINA TION OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL, THE PERSON TO WHOM SUCH INCOME BELONGS AN D PROCEED ACCORDINGLY AS PROVIDED FOR IN THE SAID SECTION. TH E CIRCUMSTANCES ENVISAGED AND THE CONTEXT IN SECTIONS 147 AND 158BD ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT IN NATURE AND SO IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO IM PORT THE APEX COURT IT(SS)A NO.16/AHD/2008 B.P.1/4/95 TO 17/7/01 DCIT CIR-2 ABD V. M/S. PATEL AMRATBHAI SAMABHAI & CO. PAGE 8 DECISION IN THE CASE CITED (SUPRA) INTO THE SECTION 158BD PROCEEDING FOR THE REASONS DETAILED HEREIN. 125. IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE MAY NOW EXAMINE WHETHE R THERE IS ANY RECORD OF SATISFACTION THAT MEETS THE REQUIREMENT O F LAW AS ENUNCIATED ABOVE. WE HAVE ALREADY REPRODUCED THE COPY OF THE S AID RECORD DATED 19-12-2002. IT IS SIGNED BY THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3, NEW DELHI. IT IS THEREFORE ADMI TTEDLY RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAKING THE SECTION 158BD ASSESSME NT AS THE NOTICE UNDER THE SAID SECTION HAS ALSO BEEN ISSUED BY HIM. THIS NOTE RECORDS THAT SEARCH IN THE CASE OF SHRI MANOJ AGGARWAL AND ASSOCIATE CONCERNS AND THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT MADE ON HIM CONCLUSIVELY E STABLISHES THE FACT THAT HE WAS INVOLVED IN PROVIDING BOGUS ACCOMM ODATION BOOK ENTRIES TO VARIOUS PERSONS ON COMMISSION BASIS AND FOR THIS PURPOSE HE HAD USED THE NAMES AND BANK ACCOUNTS OF VARIOUS COM PANIES, BENAMI PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERNS IN THE NAMES OF HIS EMPLOYE ES, IN THE NAMES OF RELATIVES, VARIOUS HUF ENTITIES AND FIRMS AND ON E SUCH CONCERN IS M/S. BISHANCHAND MUKESH KUMAR THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF WHICH WERE OPERATED BY S/SHRI MUKESH KUMAR AND BISHANCHAND AGG ARWAL; THAT THE SOURCES OF CASH AND CLEARING DEPOSITS AND THE W ITHDRAWALS FROM THESE BANK ACCOUNTS NEED TO BE EXAMINED; THESE ACCO UNTS HAVE BEEN USED FOR ACCOMMODATION BOOK ENTRIES AND HENCE, UNDI SCLOSED INCOME HAS ARISEN IN THE HANDS OF THIS CONCERN WHICH HAS B EEN FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS IN THE CASE OF SHRI MANOJ AGGARWAL AND HIS ASSOCIATE CONCERNS; THUS, PROCEEDI NGS UNDER SECTION 158BD ARE APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE. ADMITTEDLY, THIS NOTE IS AFTER THE DATE OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF MANOJ KUMAR AGGA RWAL WHICH WAS FINALIZED ON 29-8-2002. FURTHER, THE NOTE OF SATISF ACTION IS NOT RECORDED BY THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI ACTING AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAKING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 158BC O F MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL SINCE THE SAID ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN FINALIZ ED EARLIER. CLEARLY THE NOTE OF SATISFACTION DATED 19-12-2002 IS BEYOND THE DATE OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT IN THE SECTION 158BC PROCEEDINGS DATED 2 9-8-2002 IN THE CASE OF SHRI MANOJ AGGARWAL. THEREFORE, THE SATISFA CTION RECORDED IS BELATED. 126. FURTHER, THE SAID NOTE OF SATISFACTION SPEAKS OF MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL DOING ACCOMMODATION BUSINESS THROUGH VARIO US BENAMI CONCERNS AND IN THE NAMES OF VARIOUS PERSONS AND EA RNING COMMISSION THROUGH SUCH ACCOMMODATION AND THAT ONE SUCH CONCER N USED BY HIM IS THE APPELLANT-FIRM. IT FURTHER STATES THAT THE B ANK ACCOUNTS OF THE FIRM HAVE TO BE EXAMINED AND THE SOURCE OF THE CASH AND CLEARING DEPOSITS AND THE WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANKS HAVE TO BE EXAMI NED. THERE IS THUS NO FINDING IN THE SAID NOTE THAT ON EXAMINATIO N OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL BY HIM IN THE CASE OF MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL HE HAS FOUND THAT THERE IS UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND THAT SUCH UNDI SCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE-FIRM. ON THE OTHER HAND, IT SAYS THAT THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE FIRM HAVE TO BE EXAMINED. THERE IS NOT EVEN A WHISPER OF DETECTION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM. THE VERY RECORD LEAVES A TELL TALE EVIDENCE TO THE EFFECT TH AT NO FINDING HAS BEEN ARRIVED AT TO SHOW THAT THERE EXISTS UNDISCLOSED IN COME OF THE IT(SS)A NO.16/AHD/2008 B.P.1/4/95 TO 17/7/01 DCIT CIR-2 ABD V. M/S. PATEL AMRATBHAI SAMABHAI & CO. PAGE 9 ASSESSEE-FIRM. HAD IT BEEN SO, THERE WOULD HAVE BEE N A REFERENCE TO THE SAME AND THERE WAS NO NEED TO STATE THAT FURTHE R EXAMINATION OF VARIOUS ACCOUNTS WAS REQUIRED. HENCE, THE NOTE ITSE LF ADMITS THAT NO UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT HA S BEEN FOUND EVEN ON THE DATE OF SUCH NOTING WHICH MILITATES AGAINST THE REQUIREMENT OF A NOTE OF SATISFACTION IN TERMS OF SECTION 158BD. IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING IN THE CASE OF MANOJ AGGARWAL UNDER SECTION 158BC THERE IS ANY FIN DING OF ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT; EV EN THERE, WE DID NOT COME ACROSS ANY FINDING THAT ANY PART OF THE UNDISC LOSED INCOME BELONGS TO THE APPELLANT OR ANY REFERENCE TO ANY MA TERIAL THEREIN INDICATING THE SAME. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE, WE HAVE T O HOLD THAT THE SATISFACTION NOTE DATED 19-12-2002 IS NOT THE ONE C ONTEMPLATED IN SECTION 158BD AND FURTHER THAT EVEN IF IT IS ASSUME D TO BE IN TERMS OF THE SAID SECTION IT DOES NOT EVEN REMOTELY SHOW THA T THERE IS UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGING TO THE APPELLANT-FIRM CALLING FOR THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 158BD. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE, WE HOLD THAT THE SAID NOTE OF SATISFACTION IS NON-E STABLISHED IN LAW AND FURTHER THAT THE SECTION 158BD PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO IS INVALID AND VOID AB INITIO ON THIS GROUND ALSO. 127. WE ARE OF THE FIRM VIEW THAT THE PROCEEDINGS U NDER SECTION 158BD ARE INVALID FOR THE REASONS ABOVE STATED AND SO THE ASSESSMENT MADE PURSUANT TO THESE PROCEEDINGS IS BAD IN LAW. THE SA ME IS ACCORDINGLY LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND THAT A SEARCH ACTION U/S.37(3) OF FEMA ACT, 1999 WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE ON THE LUGGAGE VAN OF ASHRAM EXPRESS ON 9-7-2001 TAKEN ON LEASE BY SHRI JADISH GUJAJR AND PRABHU G YADHAV. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF ANGADIA. THE SEARCH OF BAGGAGES/PARCELS IN THE LUG GAGE VAN RESULTED INTO SEIZURE OF VALUABLES LIKE INDIAN CURRENCY, GOLD BIS CUITS, SILVER BARD, DIAMONDS, JEWELLERY (IMPORTED) ETC. THE CASH, BULLION AND JEW ELLERY WORTH RS.3,34,89,705/- WERE SEIZED AND INVENTORIED VIDE PANCHNAMAS DONE BY ED OFFICIALS SEPARATELY IN THE NAMES OF VARIOUS ANGADIAS FROM WHOSE BAGGAGE TH E SEIZED ASSETS WERE FOUND. THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S.158B C WAS STARTED IN THE CASE OF SHRI JADISH GUJJAR AND PRABHU G JADHAV AND BLOCK ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S.158BC VIDE ORDER DATED 31-07-2003. THE ASSESSEE WAS ONE OF THEM AND CONSEQUENTLY, PROCEEDINGS U/S.158BD OF THE ACT WAS INITIATED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME D ATED 21-9-2004 DECLARING UNDISCLOSED INCOME AT NIL IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S.158BD DATED 12- 4-2004, WHICH WAS SERVED ON 17-4-2004. IT MEANS THA T, THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE U/S.158BD O F THE ACT WAS TAKEN AFTER MORE THAN THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF SEARCH. IN V IEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, AND THE LEGAL PROPOSITION LAID DOWN IN THE CASE LAW OF MANOJ AGGARWAL (SUPRA), THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATE D U/S.158BD VIDE NOTICE DATED 12-04-2004 IS BARRED BY LIMITATION AND ACCORDINGLY, WE QUASH THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, WE ALLOW THE A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON JURISDICTION. IT(SS)A NO.16/AHD/2008 B.P.1/4/95 TO 17/7/01 DCIT CIR-2 ABD V. M/S. PATEL AMRATBHAI SAMABHAI & CO. PAGE 10 6. AS REGARDS TO REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.196/AHD/2006 , IT IS TO BE STATED THAT, ONCE THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.158 BD IS QUASHED, NOTHING REMAINS ON MERITS OF THE CASE. ACCORDINGLY, THE REVENUES A PPEAL IS ALSO DISMISSED. 4. THE LD.SR-DR, HOWEVER, RELIED ON THE BLOCK ASSES SMENT ORDER. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THR OUGH THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. WE FIND THAT THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT U/S.158BC OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED IN THE CASE OF SHRI JAGDISH GUJJAR AND PRABHU G JADHAV , THE SEARCHED PERSONS, VIDE ORDER DATED 31-07-2003 IN VIEW OF THE SEARCH CONDUCTED UNDER FE MA ON 09-07-2001 ON THE LUGGAGE VAN OF ASHRAM EXPRESS. THE INCOME-TAX DEPAR TMENT STARTED THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.158BC ON 24-07-2002 AGAINST THE SEA RCHED PERSONS. WE FURTHER FIND THAT BLOCK ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF THE PRESE NT ASSESSEE WAS COMPLETED U/S.158BD OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 22-09-2006 IN LIEU OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S.158BD OF THE ACT ON 13-04-2006. IT MEANS THAT, THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE U/S.158BD OF THE ACT WAS TAKEN UP EVEN THOUGH NO SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED QUA THIS ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF SEARC HED ASSESSEE WHERE BLOCK ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S.158BC OF THE ACT. IN V IEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, AND THE LEGAL PROPOSITION LAID DOWN IN THE CASE LAW OF MANOJ AGGARWAL V. DCIT (2008) 113 ITD 377 (DEL ), THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED VIDE NOTICE U/S.158BD DATED 13-04-2006 I S WITHOUT RECORDING OF SATISFACTION AND ACCORDINGLY, WE QUASH THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDE R. ACCORDINGLY, WE ALLOW THE PLEA RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER RULE 27 OF APPELL ATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963 ON JURISDICTION. ACCORDINGLY, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISM ISSED. 6. THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT CO F ILED BY ASSESSEE IS TIME BARRED BY 867 DAYS AND THE REASONS STATED IN CONDON ATION PETITION ARE GIVEN IN PARA- 3-5 OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY PARTNER OF THE ASSESS EE-FIRM DATED 23-08-2010 AS UNDER:- 3. THAT IN THE CASE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V/S. TURQUOISE INVESTMENT AND FINANCE LTD. REPORTED IN (2008) 299 ITR 143 IT HAS BEEN HELD BY HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT THAT IF THE MA TERIAL IS ON RECORD ON THE BASIS OF WHEREOF OBJECTION CAN BE RAISED THE PARTIE S TO THE APPEAL CAN NOT BE PRECLUDED FROM RAISING SUCH CONTENTIONS, SPECIALLY THE RESPONDENT IN VIEW OF RULE 27 OF THE I.T.A.T. RULES 1963; 4. THAT IN APPEAL MEMO BEFORE C.I.T.(A) THE RESPOND ENT FIRM HA ALREADY TAKEN GROUND THAT THE BLOCK ORDER IN BAD-IN-LAW. IT(SS)A NO.16/AHD/2008 B.P.1/4/95 TO 17/7/01 DCIT CIR-2 ABD V. M/S. PATEL AMRATBHAI SAMABHAI & CO. PAGE 11 5. THAT FOR ABOVE REASONS, THE RESPONDENT FIRM RESP ECTFULLY PRAYS FOR CONDO NATION OF DELAY OF 867 DAYS IN FILING CROSS OBJECTI ONS AS THE APPEAL MEMO FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT WAS RECEIVED ON 08/02/2008. THE LD COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE STATED THAT HE IS NOT I NTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE CO AS IT IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. HENCE, SAME IS DISM ISSED AS UN-ADMITTED. 7. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL AND THAT OF ASSESSE ES CO ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS DAY OF 30 TH NOV,2010 SD/- SD/- ( G.D.AGARWAL ) ( MAHAVIR SINGH ) (VICE PRESIDENT) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, DATED : 30/11/2010 *DKP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE REVENUE. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)-VII, AHMEDABAD 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, /TRUE COPY/ DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD