SHRIKANT G. MANTRI, MUMBAI V. DCIT RG 4(2), MUMBAI

ITSSA 189/MUM/2005

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7606 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 10 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-02-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 29-04-2005
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P C MAURYA
• Keywords: Document seized; Question of law; Block assessment
• Section: 133A; 132; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, B, MUMBAI BEFORE HONBLE PRESIDENT SHRI G.E.VEERABHADRAPPA AND SHRI D.K.AGARWAL (JM) IT(SS)A NO.189/MUM/2005 (BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD : 1.4.1988 TO 20.10.1998) SHRIKANT G.MANTRI 2 ND FLOOR, SURYA MAHAL BLDG., NAGINDAS MASTER ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI-400023 PAN: AAHPM1105F DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE -4(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M K ROAD, MUMBAI-400020. APPELLANT V/S RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING : 14.2.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.2.2012 APPELLANT BY : SHRI HIRO RAI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.C.MAURYA O R D E R PER D.K.AGARWAL (JM) THIS APPEAL ARISES AS A RESULT OF ORDER PASSED BY T HE TRIBUNAL IN MA NO.182/MUM/2010 ARISING OUT OF IT(SS )A NO.189/MUM/2005 DATED 23.7.2010, WHEREIN THE TRIBU NAL HAS RECALLED ITS ORDER DATED 5.6.2008 ON THE GROUND THA T THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF THE PRO CEEDINGS IT(SS)A NO.189/MUM/2005 (BAP : 1.4.1988 TO 20.10.1998) 2 UNDER SECTION 158BD HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED WHILE DEC IDING HE APPEAL ON MERITS. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE A SSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SHARE BROKING AND TRADIN G. A SEARCH & SEIZURE ACTION U/S.132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1 (THE ACT) WAS CONDUCTED ON 20.10.1998 IN THE CASE ONE, SHRI R OMESH SHARMA AT C-30, MAYFAIR GARDEN, NEW DELHI. DURING T HE COURSE OF SEARCH, A DOCUMENT ANNEXURE A-I NUMBERED AS PAGE 24, WAS FOUND AND SEIZED FROM THE ABOVE PREMISES. THE S AID DOCUMENT OF ONE PAGE CONTAINED DETAILS OF SECURITIE S RECEIVED FROM SHRI SHRIKANT G. MANTRI AMOUNTING TO RS.46.04 CRORES AND LOANS GIVEN TO HIM BY ONE M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES G ROUP AND OTHER COMPANIES AMOUNTING TO RS.40.69 CRORES. THE S AID DOCUMENT WAS FORWARDED TO THE ERSTWHILE ASSESSING O FFICER OF CIRCLE 12(3), MUMBAI BY THE ADDL. DIT (INV) UNIT I II, MUMBAI AFTER RECEIVING THE SAME FROM THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIR CLE -13, NEW DELHI WHO COMPLETED THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT IN THE CA SE OF SAID SHRI ROMESH SHARMA . ACCORDINGLY, PROCEEDINGS U/ S.158 BD OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS INITIATED IN THE CA SE OF THE ASSESSEE BY ISSUE OF NOTICE ON 12.6.2002. IN RESPO NSE, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD ON 2 6.8.2003 DECLARING UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD A T RS.NIL. THE AO ISSUED STATUTORY NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 142 (1) TO THE IT(SS)A NO.189/MUM/2005 (BAP : 1.4.1988 TO 20.10.1998) 3 ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE DE TAILS AND PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR VERIFICATION OF THE NOTING OF TRANSACTIONS CONTAINED IN THE SAID SEIZED DOCUMENT, APPARENTLY DETAILS OF SHARES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND LOANS R ECEIVED BY HIM. IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE FILED THE EXPLANATI ON/DETAILS. THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT HE HAS TAKEN LOANS OF RS.40.69 CRORES FROM RELIANCE ENTERPRISES LTD. AND OTHER AS SOCIATE COMPANIES OF RELIANCE INDUSTRIES GROUP OF COMPANIE S AGAINST SECURITIES OF SHARES AND EXPLAINED SUCH LOANS WITH REFERENCE TO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE OWNED UP MOST OF T HE SHARES RECORDED IN SAID LOOSE PAPER. BUT HE COMPLETELY DEN IED THE OWNERSHIP OF FOLLOWING SHARES AS OFFERED TO THE AB OVE COMPANIES: ITEM NO.OF SEIZED PAPER NAME OF COMPANY NO.OF SHARES VALUE (RS.) 5 PRUDENTIAL CAPITAL LTD 150000 10,875,500 25 INDO BIOTECH 8400 75,600 26 PANCHMAHAL CEMENT 2700 40,500 27 TOSHA PICTURE TUBES 4800 28800 DURING VERIFICATION, A.O. FURTHER FOUND THAT THE A SSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN PART OF SHARES AS APPEARING IN SEIZED PAPER TO THAT OF PURCHASE BILLS, THE DETAILS OF SUCH SHARES ARE A S UNDER: IT(SS)A NO.189/MUM/2005 (BAP : 1.4.1988 TO 20.10.1998) 4 ITEM NO. AS PER SEIZED PAPER NAME OF COMPANY NO.OF SHARES AS PER SEIZED PAPER NO.OF SHARES AS PER BILLS DIFFERENCE IN NO.OF SHARES VALUE OF DIFFERENCE IN SHARES 22 ANKIT GRANITES 10,000 9400 600 9,000 31 GEM EYE ADORNS 300,000 192200 107800 34,17,260 28 VAMOTYWALA CHEMICALS 1,72,800 172200 600 5,400 24 LLOYDS FINANCE (MAGNIFICENT LEASING) 800 600 200 35,000 TOTAL 34,66,660 THE ASSESSEE DENIED OWNERSHIP OF EXCESS SHARES OF V ARIOUS COMPANIES MENTIONED ABOVE WHICH ARE APPEARING IN L OOSE SEIZED PAPER. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 29.6.2004 BEFORE A.O. AFFIRMING THAT THE AFORESAID DOCUMENT DOES NOT BELONG TO HIM NOR IT IS AUTHENTICATED BY H IM. THE A.O. REJECTED ASSESSEES EXPLANATION AND TAXED THE VALUE OF SHARES OF RS. 1,10,19,900/- PLUS RS.34,66,660/- AGGREGATIN G TO RS.1,44,86,560/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:- (A) SEIZED DOCUMENT CLEARLY MENTIONS SECURITIES RECEIVED FROM SHRIKANT G. MANTRI AND ALSO CONTAIN S SCRIPWISE DESCRIPTION, NUMBER OF SHARES, RATE AND A MOUNTS IN LACS. THE TOTAL NUMBERS OF SCRIPS ARE 32 OF VAL UE RS.4604.26 LACS. THE DOCUMENT ALSO MENTIONS THAT L OAN GIVEN TO SHRIKANT MANTRI OF RS.4069.59 LACS ON VARIOUS DATES. (B) OUT OF 32 SCRIPS MENTIONED IN LOOSE PAPER 25 SCRIPS WERE OWNED BY ASSESSEE AND SAME ARE PROPERL Y EXPLAINED BY ASSESSEE WITH REFERENCE TO BOOKS OF A CCOUNT IT(SS)A NO.189/MUM/2005 (BAP : 1.4.1988 TO 20.10.1998) 5 AND LOANS WERE ALSO PROPERLY REFLECTED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN SUCH A SITUATION, IT CANNOT BE BELIEVED THAT SCR IPS WHICH ARE NOT APPEARING IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DO NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE. ( C ) THE ASSESSEES DENIAL OF CONTENTS OF PAPER ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT FOUND FROM HIS POSSESSIO N OR IS NOT AUTHENTICATED BY HIM ALSO DOES NOT CARRY MUCH W EIGHT AS MOST OF TRANSACTIONS RECORDED ON LOOSE PAPER AR E OWNED UP BY THE ASSESSEE AND PROPERLY REFLECTED I N BOOKS OF ACCOUNT INCLUDING AMOUNT OF LOANS. (D) A SUMMONS ISSUED TO THE COMPANY PRUDENTIAL CAPITAL MARKET LTD., KOLKOTTA RETURNED UNSERVED, SO ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS REMAINED UNVERIFIED. (E) THE ASSESSEE HAS MULTIPLE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF SHARE-BROKING AND SHARE TRADING, SO IT IS DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE THAT PART OF SHARES DO NOT BELONG TO HIM. 3. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS AND THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO WHILE AGREEING WITH THE VIEWS OF THE AO UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS.1,44,86,500/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US TAKING THE FOLLOWIN G GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER U/S 158 BD FOR PROCEEDING U/S 158 BD IN RESPECT OF AN UNAUTHENTICATED DOCUMENT SEIZED FROM A THIRD PARTY. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING /CONFIRMIN G THE ORDER U/S 158 BD WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN PASSED BY THE LEARNED DCIT U/S 158 BC. IT(SS)A NO.189/MUM/2005 (BAP : 1.4.1988 TO 20.10.1998) 6 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER WI THOUT PROPERLY EXAMINING THE REMAND REPORT AND THE OTHER EVIDENCE PRODUCED. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED DCIT WHICH WAS PASSED ON THE BASIS OF AN UNSIGNED PAPER FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF A THIRD PARTY. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING / UPHOLDI NG THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED DCIT OF TREATING THE VALUE OF CERTAIN SHARES NOT BELONGING TO THE APPELLANT AS UNDISCLOSE D INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. (RS.1,10,19,900/-) 6. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING / UPHOLDI NG THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED DCIT OF TREATING THE DIFFERE NTIAL VALUE OF CERTAIN SHARES NOT BELONGING TO THE APPELLANT AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. (34,66,660/-). 5. THE ASSESSEE VIDE APPLICATION DATED 5.9.2007 HAS ALSO TAKEN FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BD AND THE ORDER PASSED CONSEQUENT THERETO ARE ILLEGAL AND INV ALID AND DESERVE TO BE QUASHED. 2. THE LEARNED DC WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LEVYING SURCHARGE WHILE COMPLETING THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT. 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS ARE LEGAL GROUN DS, THEREFORE, THE SAME MAY BE ADMITTED. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR DID NOT OPPOSE TH E ADMISSION OF THE ABOVE LEGAL ADDITIONAL GROUNDS. IT(SS)A NO.189/MUM/2005 (BAP : 1.4.1988 TO 20.10.1998) 7 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECOR D. WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND S TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE LEGAL GROUNDS, FACTS ARE BORNE OU T FROM THE RECORDS AND THE ISSUES GO TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTE R, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. V/S CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD JURI SDICTION TO EXAMINE A QUESTION OF LAW WHICH AROSE FROM THE FACT S AS FOUND BY THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES AND HAVING A BEARING ON THE TAX LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE, WE ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 9. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE REFERRIN G TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT SUBMITS TH AT IN THIS CASE NO SATISFACTION HAS BEEN RECORDED BY THE AO WHILE MAKING THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF PERSONS SEARCHED WHICH IS A MANDATORY CONDITION AND FAILURE ON WHICH THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 158BD WILL BE WITHOUT JURISDI CTION AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT TH E LETTER DATED 30.4.2002, FILED BY THE LD. DR, AT THE TIME O F HEARING, DOES NOT SHOW THAT THE SATISFACTION IN TERMS OF SE CTION 158BD OF THE ACT HAS BEEN RECORDED BY THE AO WHILE MAKIN G THE BLOCK IT(SS)A NO.189/MUM/2005 (BAP : 1.4.1988 TO 20.10.1998) 8 ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF THE PERSONS SEARCHED, THE REFORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MANISH MAHESHWARI V/S ACIT (2007) 289 ITR 341 ( SC) AND MANOJ AGGARWAL V/S DCIT (2008) 113 ITD 377 (DELHI) (SB) ASSESSMENT COMPLETED BY THE AO U/S 158BD DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUBMITS THAT THE ACT NOWHERE SPECIFICALLY PRESCRIBES AS TO HOW THE SATIS FACTION IS TO BE RECORDED. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE SATISFAC TION HAS BEEN RECORDED BY THE AO VIDE LETTER DATED 30.4.2002, TH EREFORE, THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 158BD HAS BEEN FULLY COMPLIE D WITH AND THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BE UPHELD. 11. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECOR D. WE FIND THAT THE FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE. UNDER SECTION 15 8BD, SATISFACTION HAS TO BE RECORDED BEFORE THE PROVISIO NS OF THE SAID SECTION ARE APPLIED IN RELATION TO ANY PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON WHOSE PREMISES HAD BEEN SEARCHED. ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, THE AO HAS MADE THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE SATISFACTION DATED 30.4.2002 RECORDE D BY THE AO MAKING THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT WHICH IS REPRODUCED B ELOW : IT(SS)A NO.189/MUM/2005 (BAP : 1.4.1988 TO 20.10.1998) 9 NO.DCIT CC-13, 2001-02 OFFICE OF THE DY. COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -13, ROOM NO.409, SUPER BAZAR, C ON. PLACE, N.DELHI. DATED : 30 TH APRIL, 2002. SHRI C.S.PRASAD, ADDL.DIT(INV.),UNIT-III, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, 4 TH FLOOR,M K ROAD, MUMBAI-400020. SIR, SUB: COMPLETION OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF SHRI ROMESH SHARMA: C-30 MAYFAIR GARDEN, N.DELHI DOS 20.10.1998 - INTIMATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF ACTION U/S 158BD IN THE CASE OF MR. SHRIKANT G. MANTRI. 3A/3B, SURYA MAHAL, 2ND FLOOR, MUMBAI. *****,************ - IN THIS CASE, SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 WAS CONDUCTED ON 20.10.1998 AT C-30. MAYFAIR GARDE N, NEW DELHI. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, A DOCUMENT ANNEXURE - A-1. PAGE 24 WAS FOUND AND SEIZED FROM T HE AFORESAID PREMISES. A COPY OF THE SAME IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH. THE DOCUMENT REFLECTED DETAILS OF SECURITIES RECEIVED FROM SHRIKANT G. MANTRI AMOUNTING TO RS.46 .04 CRORES AND LOANS GIVEN TO HIM BY THE RELIANCE GROUP OF COMPANIES AMOUNTING TO RS.40.69 CRORES. IN THIS CASE. SURVEY U/S 133A WAS CONDUCTED BY YOUR UNIT ON 30.3.1999 AND A REPORT WAS ALSO SUBM ITTED BY THE THEN ADDL.DIT(INV.), SHRI K.S. PATHANIA ON L3.8.1999. COMPLETE DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE SU RVEY FILE. THIS INFORMATION IS BEING SENT TO YOU FOR CONSIDERATION AND FOR TAKING ACTION U/S 158BD IN T HE IT(SS)A NO.189/MUM/2005 (BAP : 1.4.1988 TO 20.10.1998) 10 CASE OF MR.SHRIKANT G.MANTRI. IT IS THEREFORE, RE QUESTED THAT THE AFORESAID INFORMATION MAY KINDLY BE SENT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF MR. SHRIKANT G.MANTRI FO R TAKING NECESSARY ACTION U/S 158BD IN HIS CASE. YOURS FAITHFUL LY, SD/- (B.P.MISRA) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -13. NEW DELHI 12. FROM THE READING OF THE ABOVE, WE OBSERVE THAT THE LETTER DATED 30 TH APRIL, 2002 RELIED ON BY THE LD. DR AS SATISFACTIO N NOTE IS, IN FACT, AN INTIMATION FOR CONSIDERATION O F ACTION U/S 158BD OF THE ACT. THE SAID LETTER CANNOT BE CONSID ERED AS RECORDING OF SATISFACTION BY THE AO MAKING THE B LOCK ASSESSMENT; THEREFORE, THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE L D. DR IS DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. 13. IN MANISH MAHESHWARI (SUPRA) IT HAS BEEN OBSER VED AND HELD AS UNDER (PLACITUM 11,12,PAGE 348): THE CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR INVOKING A BLOCK ASSE SSMENT IS THAT A SEARCH HAS BEEN CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 132, OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS HAVE BEEN REQUISITIONED UNDER SECTION 132A. THE SAID PROVISION WOULD APPLY IN THE CASE OF ANY PERSON IN RESPECT OF WHOM SEARCH HAS BEEN CA RRIED OUT UNDER SECTION 132A OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS HAVE BEEN REQUISITIONED UNDER SECTION 132A. SECTION 158BD, HOWEVER, PROVIDES FOR TAKING RECOURSE TO A BLOCK ASSESSMENT IN TERMS OF SECTION 158BC IN RESPECT OF ANY OTHER PERSON, THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT WHEREFOR AR E : (I) SATISFACTION MUST BE RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO ANY PERSON, OTHER THAN THE PERSON WITH RESPECT TO WHOM SEARCH WAS MAD E UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT ; (II) THE BOOKS OF AC COUNT OR IT(SS)A NO.189/MUM/2005 (BAP : 1.4.1988 TO 20.10.1998) 11 OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED HAD BEEN HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON ; AND (III) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PROCEEDED UNDER SECTION 158BC AGAINST SUCH OTHER PERSON. THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR INVOKING THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 158BD, THUS, ARE REQUIRED TO BE SATISFIED BEFORE THE PROVISIONS OF THE SAID CHAPTER ARE APPLIED IN RELATION TO ANY PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON WHOSE PREMISES HAD BEEN SEARCHED OR WHOSE DOCUMENTS AND OTHER ASSETS H AD BEEN REQUISITIONED UNDER SECTION 132A OF THE ACT. 14. IN MANOJ AGGARWAL(SUPRA) THE SPECIAL BENCH OF T HE TRIBUNAL AS HELD VIDE PARA 126 AT PAGE 495 OF THE R EPORT AS UNDER: .. IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER IN THE COURSE O F THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING IN THE CASE OF MANOJ AGGARWAL U/S.158BC THERE IS ANY FINDING OF ANY UNDISCLOSED I NCOME IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT; EVEN THERE, WE DID NOT C OME ACROSS ANY FINDING THAT ANY PART OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO THE APPELLANT OR ANY REFERENCE TO ANY MA TERIAL THEREIN INDICATING THE SAME. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HAVE TO HOLD THAT THE SATISFACTION NOTE DATED 19.12.2002 IS NOT THE ONE CONTEMPLATED IN SECTION 158BD AND FURTHER T HAT EVEN IF ITS ASSUMED TO BE IN TERMS OF THE SAID SECT ION IT DOES NOT EVEN REMOTELY SHOW THAT THERE IS UNDISCLOS ED INCOME BELONGING TO THE APPELLANT FIRM CALLING FOR THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S.158BD. IN THE CIRCU MSTANCE, WE HOLD THAT THE SAID NOTE OF SATISFACTION 158BD. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE, WE HOLD THAT THE SAID NOTE OF SATISFA CTION IS NON-ESTABLISHED IN LAW AND FURTHER THAT THE SECTION 158BD PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO IS INVALID AND VOID AB INITIO ON THIS GROUND ALSO. IT(SS)A NO.189/MUM/2005 (BAP : 1.4.1988 TO 20.10.1998) 12 15. IN CIT V/S MRIDULA, PROP. DHRUV FABRICS (2011) 335 ITR 266 (P&H) IT HAS BEEN HELD (PAGE. 271): THE ACT NOWHERE SPECIFICALLY PRESCRIBES ANY TI ME LIMIT OR LIMITATION FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT OR FOR RECORDING OF SATISFACTION B EFORE TAKING ACTION UNDER THAT PROVISION. THE PLAIN AND REASONABLE CONSTRUCTION THAT CAN BE PLACED ON THE AFORESAID PROVISION WOULD BE THAT THE RECORDING OF SATISFACTION FOR TAKING ACTION AGAINST ANY OTHER PE RSON UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT HAS TO BE BETWEEN INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 158BC AND BEFORE COMPLETION OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF THE PERSON SEARCHED. IT WOU LD, THUS, MEANS THAT THE ACTION CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 1 58BD OF THE ACT AGAINST A THIRD PARTY TO A SEARCH, IS N ECESSARILY TO BE DURING THE COURSE OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. IT CANN OT BE AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THE SAME AS THERE IS NO OC CASION FOR AN ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE SEIZED MAT ERIAL OR DOCUMENTS OF THE SEARCHED PERSON WHEN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE CONCLUDED AND NO OTHER PROCEEDINGS ARE PENDING BEFORE HIM. IF ANY OTHER TI ME LIMIT IS READ IN THE PROVISIONS/STATUTE, IT SHALL LEAD T O ANOMALY AND WOULD BE ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE. IT COULD NOT BE READ IN THE PROVISION THAT WHERE BLOCK ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE AGAINST WHOM ACTION UNDER SECTION 132 OR 132A OF TH E ACT HAD BEEN CARRIED OUT IS FINALIZED, THE REVENUE CAN TAKE ACTION AT ANY TIME IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC LIMITATION PRESCRIBED IN THE STATUTE. A CONSTRUCTIO N WHICH LEADS TO SUCH AN ANOMALY SHOULD BE AVOIDED. 16. JUDGED ON THE ANVIL OF THE AFORESAID DECISIONS TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WE FIND THAT DESPITE MORE THA N ONE OPPORTUNITY PROVIDED TO THE REVENUE, THE REVENUE HA S PLACED NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW INCLUDING THE OFFICE NOTE, IF ANY, THAT BEFORE COMPLETION OF THE RELEVANT BLOCK ASSESS MENT IT(SS)A NO.189/MUM/2005 (BAP : 1.4.1988 TO 20.10.1998) 13 PASSED U/S.158BC, IN THE CASE OF PERSON SEARCHED, ANY SUCH SATISFACTION HAS BEEN RECORDED AS HELD IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S MUKTA METAL WORKS (2011) 336 ITR 555 (P&H) THAT THE OFFICE NOTE BY ITSELF MET THE REQUIREMENT FOR PROCEEDING U /S 158BD. IT COULD NOT BE AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT AS THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR AN AO TO EXAMINE THE SEIZ ED MATERIAL OR DOCUMENTS OF THE PERSON SEARCHED WHEN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAD CONCLUDED AND NO OTHER PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING BEFORE HIM. IN THIS VIEW O F THE MATTER WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE BLOCK ASSESSME NT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) I S CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT AND N EEDS TO BE QUASHED AND ACCORDINGLY, WE QUASH THE IMPUGNED ASSE SSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT (A). WE HOLD AND ORDER ACCORDINGLY. THE ADDITIONAL GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, ALLOWED. 17. SINCE WE HAVE QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT, THEREFORE , WE DO NOT CONSIDER IT NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE THE OTHER G ROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAM E ARE TREATED AS INFRUCTUOUS AND, HENCE, REJECTED. IT(SS)A NO.189/MUM/2005 (BAP : 1.4.1988 TO 20.10.1998) 14 18. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29TH FEB.,2 012. SD SD (G.E.VEERABHADRAPPA) (D.K.AGARWAL ) PRESIDENT JUD ICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 29TH FEBRUARY,2012. SRL: COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. DR CONCERNED BENCH 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUM BAI