SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR GOLECHA, Ujjain V. THE ACIT 1(1), Ujjain

ITSSA 176/IND/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9473 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 13-12-2018
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 11-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHIMA GUPTA
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 153A

Judgement Text

SUSHIL KUMAR GOLECHA ITA (SS) NO.176 & 177/IND/2015 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON'BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA (SS) NO.176 & 177/IND/2015 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 & 2009-10 REVENUE BY SMT. ASHIMA GUPTA ,CIT ASSESSEE BY SHRI PA V AN VED , ADV DATE OF H EARING 1 3.12 . 2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18 .1 2 .2018 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM. THE ABOVE CAPTIONED TWO APPEALS ARE FILED AT THE I NSTANCE OF ASSESSEE PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AN D 2009-10 AND ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) (IN SHORT LD.CIT(A)], UJJAIN DATED 27. 04.2015 WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961(IN SHORT THE ACT) DATED 14.3.2014 FRAMED BY ACIT (1)1, UJJAIN. SHRI SUSHIL GOLECHA, C/O RATANLALJI GOLECHA, 57-58 SUBHAH MARG, BADNAGAR, UJJAIN VS. A CIT ( 1 ) 1, UJJAIN ( APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT ) PAN NO. A HTPG5128M SUSHIL KUMAR GOLECHA ITA (SS) NO.176 & 177/IND/2015 2 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL; ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE GROUND RAISED BY THE APPELLANT REGARDING VALIDITY OF INITIATION OF PROCE EDINGS U/S 153C. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT B EING ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW, THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS LIABLE TO BE QUA SHED. 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIUT(A) ERRED IN MAINTAINING TH E ADDITION OF RS.12,50,000/- MADE U/S 69D OF IT ACT BY TOTALLY IG NORING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND CASE LAWS CITED ON THIS ISSUE. THE ADDITI ON SO MAINTAINED BEING ILLEGAL AND WRONG, THE SAME, THEREFORE, REQUIRES TO BE DELETED. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE GROUND RAISED BY THE APPELLANT REGARDING VALIDITY OF INITIATION OF PROCE EDINGS U/S 153 THAT THE INITIATION U/S 153C IS INVALID: (A) BECAUSE IT IS BELTED AS THE INITIATION WAS AFTE R 3 YEARS AND 3 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF SEARCH. (B) INITIATION IS MUCH LATE BY ABOUT 14 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF ASSESSMENT OF SEARCHED PERSON. (C ) SATISFACTION NOTE RECORDED BY LD.AO IS MERELY BASED ON THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTANT RECORDED MUCH AFTER THE DAT E OF SEARCH. (D) INITIATION IS BASED ON MATERIAL, WHICH DID NOT BELONG TO THE APPELLANT. (E) LD.A.O IS NOT CLEAR AS TO ON THE BASIS OF WHICH MATERIAL THE PROCEEDINGS WERE BEING INITIATED THAT IS MATERIAL S EIZED FROM NILESH AJMERA FROM PHOENIX DEVCON (P) LTD. (F) ANY OTHER BASIS THAT MAY BE RAISED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. SUSHIL KUMAR GOLECHA ITA (SS) NO.176 & 177/IND/2015 3 THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLAN T BEING ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW, THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS LIABL E TO BE QUASHED. 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIUT(A) ERRED IN MAINTAINING TH E ADDITION OF RS.48,00,000/- MADE BY LD.A.OU/S 69D OF IT ACT BY T OTALLY IGNORING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND CASE LAWS CITED ON THIS ISSUE . THE ADDITION SO MAINTAINED BEING ILLEGAL AND WRONG, THE SAME, THERE FORE, REQUIRES TO BE DELETED. ADDITIONAL GROUNDS AS PER REVISED GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 3. THAT THE APPROVAL GIVEN BY THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE- I, UJJAIN TO LD.A.O IS WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND, HENCE INVALID. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT RESERVES ITS RIGHTS TO AMEND, ALTER OR RAISE ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE C OURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS 3. AS THE ISSUES RAISED IN THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMO N ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. 4. WE WILL TAKE UP THE ASSESSEES FIRST GROUND CHAL LENGING THE VALIDITY OF INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 153 C OF THE ACT. 5. AT THE OUTSET LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED THAT FOR BOTH THE TWO YEARS IN APPEAL I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 008-09 AND 2009-10 THE PRECONDITION FOR INITIATING THE PROCEED INGS U/S 153 C OF THE ACT IS THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER (IN S HORT LD.A.O) OF THE SEARCHED PERSON SHOULD RECORD A SATISFACTION TH AT INCRIMINATING SUSHIL KUMAR GOLECHA ITA (SS) NO.176 & 177/IND/2015 4 MATERIAL RELATING TO OTHER PERSON (OTHER THAN THE S EARCHED PERSON) HAS BEEN FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH BUT FOR BOTH THE YEARS NO SUCH SATISFACTION HAS BEEN RECORDED BY THE LD. A .O OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AND THEREFORE IN VIEW OF JUDGMENT O F HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF PEPSICO INDIA HOLDING P. LTD V. ACIT 50 TAXMANN.COM 299 (2014) DELHI, THE PROCEEDINGS INITI ATED U/S 153C OF THE ACT ARE VOID AB INITIO . LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COU RT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS CALCUTTA KNITWEARS (2014) 43 TAXMANN.COM 446 (SC) AND CIRCULAR NO.24/2015 ISSUED BY CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRE CT TAXES DATED 31.12.2015. 6. PER CONTRA LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THOUG H SUPPORTED THE FINDING OF LD.CIT(A) BUT FAILED TO CONTROVERT T HE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTING THAT THE RE IS NO SATISFACTION NOTE OF THE LD.A.O OF SEARCHED PERSON ON RECORD. 7. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH VARIOUS JUDGMENTS REFERRED AND RELIED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE. SOLE LEGAL ISSUE FOR BOTH THE YEARS UNDER APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE VALIDITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U /S 153C OF THE ACT. SUSHIL KUMAR GOLECHA ITA (SS) NO.176 & 177/IND/2015 5 8. BRIEF FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE RECORDS ARE T HAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS WERE CARRIED OUT AT VARIOUS PREM ISES OF SATELLITE GROUP AND OTHER ASSOCIATE CONCERNS ON 19.11.2009. V ARIOUS DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED WHICH ALLEGEDLY ALSO INCLUDED DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE. AFTER RECORDING NECESSA RY SATISFACTION BY THE LD. A.O THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 153 C OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED. RETURN OF INCOME FOR RESPECTIVE ASSESSM ENT YEARS WERE FILED AND THE ASSESSMENTS U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153C OF THE ACT WERE COMPLETED ON 14.3.14 AFTER MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS . 9. ISSUES RAISED BEFORE US BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE PRE CONDITION FOR INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153 C OF THE ACT IS THAT PROPER SATISFACTION HAS TO BE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. PERUSAL OF THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REQUESTING TIME AND AGAIN FOR SUPPLY OF THE SA TISFACTION NOTE RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED P ERSON. THE EXTRACT OF ONE OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED 31.8.201 5 FILED BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD 2(2), UJJAIN IS MENTION ED BELOW:- SUSHIL KUMAR GOLECHA ITA (SS) NO.176 & 177/IND/2015 6 FROM: SHRI SUSHIL GOLECHA, BADNAGAR (DIST. JUUAN) PAN: AHTPG5128M DATE: 31.08.15 TO, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2) UJJAIN RESPECTED SIR, SUB: SUPPLY OF COPY OF SATISFACTION NOTE RECORDED B Y ASSESSING OFFICER OF SEARCHED PERSON FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 153C AND CO PY OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS MENTIONED IN REASONS RECORDED. PLEASE REFER TO ABOVE SUBJECT. ASSESSMENT OF SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR GOLECHA, BADNAGAR, DIST. UJJAIN (PAN: AHTPG5128M) WAS COMPLE TED U/S 143(3)/153C FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 & 2009-10 RAISED HU GE DEMAND. THESE TWO ASSESSMENTS ARE PENDING BEFORE HON'BLE I. T.A.T.-INDORE. ONE OF THE GROUNDS BEFORE I.T.A.T. IS THAT INITIATION OF PROCE EDING U/S 153C IS INVALID. TO SUBSTANTIATE THIS GROUND, IT IS REQUIRED TO PRODUCE BEFORE HON'BLE I.T.A.T., COPY OF SATISFACTION RECORDED OF SEARCHED PERSON, I.E. S HRI NILESH AJMERA. THAT COPY IS IN YOUR RECORD. YOU ARE THEREFORE HUMBLY REQUES TED TO PLEASE SUPPLY THE ABOVE COPY AT THE EARLIEST FOR BEING PRODUCED BEFOR E I.T.A.T. IT IS ALSO REQUESTED THAT YOUR HONOR HAVE RELIED ON VARIOUS PAPERS FOR MAKING THE ASSESSMENT. FOLLOWING PAPERS UJSED IN ASSESSMEN T ARE NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE APPLICANT: PAGE NO.18 OF LPS-502, LPA-A/233. PAGE NO.75 OF BS- 8 IT IS REQUESTED THAT THEY SHOULD ALSO BE MADE AVAIL ABLE SO THAT CASE CAN BE PROPERLY DEFENDED BEFORE HON'BLE I.T.A.T. THEY MAY BE SUPPLIED TO THE UNDERSIGNED. THANKING YOU, SUSHIL KUMAR GOLECHA ITA (SS) NO.176 & 177/IND/2015 7 YOURS FAITHFULLY, SD/- (AJAY JAIN) CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT FOR SHRI SUSHIL GOLECHA 10. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US SUFFICIE NT OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED TO THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE TO PRODUCE THE SATISFACTION NOTE RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON I.E. NILESH AJMERA, DIRECTOR OF M/S . PHOENIX DEVCONS PVT. LTD WHICH WAS THE PART OF SATELLITE GR OUP. HOWEVER LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IS FAIR ENOUGH TO A CCEPT THAT AFTER THOROUGH EXAMINATION OF RECORDS NO SUCH SATISFACTIO N NOTE WAS FOUND TO BE RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF TH E SEARCHED PERSON I.E. NILESH AJMERA WHEREIN INFORMATION RELAT ING TO THE ALLEGED INCRIMINATING MATERIAL RELATING TO THE ASSESSEE I.E . OTHER PERSON HAS BEEN FOUND. IN THIS SITUATION WHERE THE BASIC C ONDITION BEFORE INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C OF THE ACT ARE INITIATED IN THE CASE OF OTHER PERSON HAS NOT BEEN COMPLIED TO BY WA Y OF NOT RECORDING A PROPER SATISFACTION NOTE BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON THEN WHETHER SUCH PROCEEDINGS INITI ATED U/S 153C SUSHIL KUMAR GOLECHA ITA (SS) NO.176 & 177/IND/2015 8 OF THE ACT ARE VALID OR NOT NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. 11. WE FIND THAT HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF PEPSICO INDIA HOLDING P. LTD V. ACIT (SUPRA ) DEALING WITH THE SIMILAR ISSUE SET OUT THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES WHICH NEEDS TO BE FOLLOWED SO AS TO COMPLY THE PROVISION OF SECTION 153C OF THE A CT:- 13. HAVING SET OUT THE POSITION IN LAW IN THE DECI SION OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF PEPSI FOODS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), IT MUST BE S EEN AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON (THE JAIPU RIA GROUP) COULD BE SAID TO HAVE ARRIVED AT A SATISFACTION THAT THE DOC UMENTS MENTIONED ABOVE BELONGED TO THE PETITIONERS. 14. FIRST OF ALL WE MAY POINT OUT, ONCE AGAIN, THAT IT IS NOBODY'S CASE THAT THE JAIPURIA GROUP HAD DISCLAIMED THESE DOCUMENTS A S BELONGING TO THEM. UNLESS AND UNTIL IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE DOCUMEN TS DO NOT BELONG TO THE SEARCHED PERSON, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE SAID ACT DO NOT GET ATTRACTED BECAUSE THE VERY EXPRESSION USED IN SECTI ON 153C OF THE SAID ACT IS THAT 'WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED T HAT ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOO KS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED BELONGS OR BELONG TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 153A .... ' IN VI EW OF THIS PHRASE, IT IS NECESSARY THAT BEFORE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153 C OF THE SAID ACT CAN BE INVOKED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERS ON MUST BE SATISFIED THAT THE SEIZED MATERIAL.(WHICH INCLUDES DOCUMENTS) DOES NOT BELONG TO THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 153A (I.E., THE SEARC HED PERSON). IN THE SUSHIL KUMAR GOLECHA ITA (SS) NO.176 & 177/IND/2015 9 SATISFACTION NOTE, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF T HESE WRIT PETITIONS, THERE IS NOTHING THEREIN TO INDICATE THAT THE SEIZED DOCU MENTS DO NOT BELONG TO THE JAIPURIA GROUP. THIS IS EVEN APART FROM THE FAC T THAT, AS WE HAVE NOTED ABOVE, THERE IS NO DISCLAIMER ON THE PART OF THE JA IPURIA GROUP INSOFAR AS THESE DOCUMENTS ARE CONCERNED. 15. SECONDLY, WE MAY ALSO OBSERVE THAT THE FINDING OF PHOTOCOPIES IN THE POSSESSION OF A SEARCHED PERSON DOES NOT NECESSARIL Y MEAN AND IMPLY THAT THEY 'BELONG' TO THE PERSON WHO HOLDS THE ORIG INALS. POSSESSION OF DOCUMENTS AND POSSESSION OF PHOTOCOPIES OF DOCUMENT S ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS. WHILE THE JAIPURIA GROUP MAY BE THE OWNER O F THE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE THAT THE ORIGINA LS MAY BE OWNED BY SOME OTHER PERSON. UNLESS IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT TH E DOCUMENTS IN QUESTION, WHETHER THEY BE PHOTOCOPIES OR ORIGINALS, DO NOT BE LONG TO THE SEARCHED PERSON, THE QUESTION OF INVOKING SECTION 153C OF TH E SAID ACT DOES NOT ARISE. 16. THIRDLY, WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO MAKE IT CLEAR TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICERS SHOULD NOT CONFUSE THE EXPRESSION 'BELONGS TO' WITH THE EXPRESSIONS 'RELATES TO' OR 'REFERS TO'. A REGISTERED SALE DEED , FOR EXAMPLE, 'BELONGS TO' THE PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY ALTHOUGH IT OBVIOUSLY 'RELATES TO' OR 'REFERS TO THE VENDOR. IN THIS EXAMPLE IF THE PURCHASERS PREMI SES ARE SEARCHED AND THE REGISTERED SALE DEED IS SEIZED, IT CANNOT BE SA ID THAT IT 'BELONGS TO'' THE VENDOR JUST BECAUSE HIS NAME IS MENTIONED IN THE DO CUMENT. IN THE CONVERSE CASE IF THE VENDOR'S PREMISES ARE SEARCHED AND A COPY OF THE SALE DEED IS SEIZED, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE SAID COP Y 'BELONGS TO' THE PURCHASER JUST BECAUSE IT REFERS TO HIM AND HE (THE PURCHASER) HOLDS THE ORIGINAL SALE DEED. IN THIS LIGHT, IT IS OBVIOUS TH AT NONE OF THE THREE SETS OF DOCUMENTS _ COPIES OF PREFERENCE SHARES, UNSIGNED L EAVES OF CHEQUE BOOKS AND THE COPY OF THE SUPPLY AND LOAN AGREEMENT - CAN BE SAID TO 'BELONG TO' THE PETITIONER. SUSHIL KUMAR GOLECHA ITA (SS) NO.176 & 177/IND/2015 10 17. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION, WE DO NOT FIND THAT THE INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 153C OF THE SAID ACT HAVE BEEN SATISFIED IN THIS CASE. CONSEQUENTLY THE NOTICES DATED 02.08.2013 ISSUED UN DER SECTION L53C OF THE SAID ACT ARE QUASHED. ACCORDINGLY ALL PROCEEDIN GS PURSUANT THERETO STAND QUASHED. 18. THE WRIT PETITIONS ARE ALLOWED AS ABOVE. THERE SHALL BE NO ORDERS AS TO COSTS. 19. ALL PENDING APPLICATIONS ALSO STAND DISPOSED OF . 12. SUBSEQUENTLY ON 31.12.2015 CENTRAL BOARD OF DIR ECT TAXES (CBDT) ISSUED A CIRCULAR NO.24/2015, IN VIEW OF TH E JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS CALCUTTA KNITWEARS ( SUPRA ) ISSUED THE FOLLOWING GUIDELINES :-. CIRCULAR NO. 24/2015 F.NO.279/MISC./140 /2015/ITJ GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES NEW DELHI, 31ST DECEMBER, 2015 SUBJECT: RECORDING OF SATISFACTION NOTE UNDER SECTI ON 158BD/153C OF THE ACT REG.- SUSHIL KUMAR GOLECHA ITA (SS) NO.176 & 177/IND/2015 11 THE ISSUE OF RECORDING OF SATISFACTION FOR THE PURP OSES OF SECTION 158BD/153C HAS BEEN SUBJECT MATTER OF LITIGATION. 2. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S CAL CUTTA KNITWEARS IN ITS DETAILED JUDGMENT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.3958 OF 2014 D ATED 12.3.2014(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 P ERSON U/S 158BD. THE HONBLE COURT HELD THAT THE SATISFACTION NOTE COUL D 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 UND ER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT; OR (C) IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AR E COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. 3. SEVERAL HIGH COURTS HAVE HELD THAT THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT ARE SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR/PARI-MATERIA TO THE PROVI SIONS 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 ASSESSM ENT OF INCOME OF OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSON. THIS VIEW HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY CBDT. 4. THE GUIDELINES OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AS R EFERRED TO IN PARA 2 ABOVE, WITH REGARD TO RECORDING 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 SUSHIL KUMAR GOLECHA ITA (SS) NO.176 & 177/IND/2015 12 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 COU RTS. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, FILING OF APPEALS ON THE I SSUE OF RECORDING OF SATISFACTION NOTE SHOULD ALSO BE DECIDED IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABO VE JUDGEMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE BOARD HEREBY DIRECTS THAT PENDING LITIGATION WI TH REGARD TO RECORDING OF SATISFACTION NOTE UNDER SECTION 158BD /153C SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN/NOT PRESSED IF IT DOES NOT MEET THE GUIDELINES LAID DOW N BY THE APEX COURT. SD/ - (RAMANJIT KAUR SETHI) DCIT (OSD) (ITJ), CBDT, NEW DELHI. 13. THE ABOVE CBDT CIRCULAR ISSUED, FOLLOWING THE G UIDELINES OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS CALCUTTA KNITWEARS MAKES AMPLY CLEAR THAT SATISFACTION NOTE HAS TO BE PREPARED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON SETTING OU T PROPERLY THE DETAILS OF VARIOUS INCRIMINATING MATERIAL/DOCUMENT BELONGING TO THE OTHER PERSON AT THE TIME OF HANDING OVER SUCH INC RIMINATING MATERIAL /DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE OTHER PERSON TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING THE JURISDICTION OF SUCH OTHER PERS ON. IF THIS PRECONDITION OF ISSUING PROPER SATISFACTION NOTE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON IN FAVOUR OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER SUSHIL KUMAR GOLECHA ITA (SS) NO.176 & 177/IND/2015 13 HAVING JURISDICTION OF SUCH OTHER PERSON IS NOT CO MPLIED THEN THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 153C OF THE ACT ARE VOID AB INITIO . WE THEREFORE IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENTS OF THE HONBLE COURTS REFERRED ABOVE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT AS THE REVENU E AUTHORITIES HAVE FAILED TO PLACE ON RECORD THE SATISFACTION NOT E ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OF THE OTHER PERSON I.E . THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE, THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 153C OF TH E ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND 2009-10 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE NEEDS TO BE QUASHED. WE ACCORDINGLY ALLOW THIS COM MON LEGAL ISSUE IN THE FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE VALID ITY OF INITIATION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C OF THE ACT. 14. IN THE RESULT GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEE FOR B OTH THE YEARS ARE ALLOWED. 15. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.2 FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS CHALLENGING THE ADDITION MADE U/S 69D OF THE ACT IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153 C OF THE ACT, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION AS THESE GROUNDS SUSHIL KUMAR GOLECHA ITA (SS) NO.176 & 177/IND/2015 14 RENDERS TO BE INFRUCTUOUS AND MERELY ACADEMIC IN NA TURE AS WE HAVE ALREADY QUASHED THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 153 C OF THE ACT THEREBY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE U/S 153C OF THE ACT. 16. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR BOTH T HE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE ALLOWED. 17. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE P ERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 & 2009-10 ARE ALLOWED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18.12.2 018. SD/- SD/- ( KUL BHARAT) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / DATED : 18 DECEMBER, 2018 /DEV COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT CONCERNED/CIT (A) CONCERNED/ DR, ITAT, INDORE/GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, ASSTT.REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T., INDORE