ACIT, New Delhi V. Mr. T.J. Raman, New Delhi

ITSSA 19/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8954 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-09-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 07-09-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 07-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: REENA SINGH PURI
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Block assessment

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 19/DEL/2010 1/4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, BENCH H BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A K GARODIA, ACCOUTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 19 /DEL/2010 (BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1996 TO 31.12.2001) ACIT, CIRCLE 48(1), VS. MR. T J RAMAN, NEW DELHI. 278, POCKET-16, DWARKA, NEW DELHI. (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) PAN / GIR NO.AAKPR8915P APPELLANT BY: MS. REENA SINGH PURI, CIT DR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI R S SINGHVI, CA ORDER PER A. K. GARODIA, AM: 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-XXX, NEW DELHI DATED 25.01.2010 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD FORM 1.4.1996 TO 31.12.2001. THE GROUNDS RA ISED BY THE REVENUE READ AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN; (I) HOLDING THAT THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 158BD OF THE I. T. ACT, IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS INVALID AND VOID AB- INITIO, IGNORING THE CONTENTS OF THE ASSESSMENT FILE, WHICH CONTAIN INTER-ALIA LETTE R DATED 27.01.2003 OF DI(INV.), DELHI MENTIONING THE MODUS OPERANDS OF THE CONCERNS INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE IN UNDERSTANDING THEIR INCOME, COPY OF THE APPRAISAL REPORT MENTIONING THE STATE OF AFFAIR S WITH RAMAN ENTERPRISES AND M/S. ULTRA INTERNATIONAL, WORKING OF THE A.O. ON PAGE 318, 416, 418 AND 450 OF THE APPRAISAL REPORT. I.T.A. NO. 19/DEL/2010 2/4 (II) ANNULLING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THEREFORE NOT ADJUDICATING THE MERITS OF ADDITIONS RIGHTLY MADE BY THE A.O. (III) HOLDING THAT NOTICE U/S 158BC/158BD WAS NOT ISSUED WITHIN TIME IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE SAID NOTICE WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 13.04.2007 AND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE SAME WITHOUT EVEN EXPLAINING FOR DOING SO. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE RIGHT TO ALTER, AMEND, ADD OR SUBSTITUTE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WERE CARRIED OUT IN TH E RASTOGI GROUP AND OTHER ASSOCIATES/CONCERNS AND THI S SEARCH WAS CARRIED OUT ON 20.12.2001. IN THE PRESE NT CASE, NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY THE A.O. U/S 158BD ON 27.04.20 09. AND IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT, VARIOUS ADDITIONS WERE MADE. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE LD . CIT(A) AND BEFORE HIM, THE ASSESSEE RAISED A TECHNICAL ISS UE ALSO THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE A.O. U/S 158BD IS BAD IN LAW BECAUSE THE SAME WAS ISSUED WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED UNDER THE STATUTE. SOME OTHER CONTENTIONS WERE ALSO RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE REGARD ING INVALIDITY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE A.O. U/S 158BD. LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED ON PAGE 18 OF HIS ORDER THAT IT HAS BE EN ADMITTED BY THE A.O. IN HIS REMAND REPORT THAT NEIT HER ANY SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED IN THIS CASE BEFORE ISSUA NCE OF THE NOTICE U/S 158BD OF THE I. T. ACT NOR ANY SEIZE D MATERIAL HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY HIM. HE ALSO FOLLOWED THE JUD GEMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF MANIS H MAHESHWARI AS REPORTED IN 289 ITR 341. HE HAS ALSO FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF THIS TRIB UNAL I.T.A. NO. 19/DEL/2010 3/4 RENDERED IN THE CASE OF MANOJ AGGARWAL AND OTHERS REPORTED IN 113 ITD 377 AND; THEREAFTER, IT WAS HEL D BY HIM THAT SINCE THE NOTICE WAS NOT ISSUED WITHIN TIME AN D NO SEIZED MATERIAL WAS HANDED OVER TO THE A.O. AND SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED BY THE A.O. OF THE SEARCH PERSON, IN VIEW OF THESE TWO JUDGMENTS, THE PROCEEDINGS INI TIATED U/S 158BD OF THE I. T. ACT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSES SEE WITHOUT THE SATISFACTION IS INVALID AND VOID AB-INI TIO. NOW, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS THE LD. A.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). HE ALSO SU BMITTED A COPY OF LETTER DATED 25.03.2009 FROM ACIT, CC-4, NE W DELHI TO THE ACIT CIRCLE 33(1), NEW DELHI IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN STATED BY HIM THAT REGARDING THE COPY OF SATISFACTI ON RECODED BY THE A.O. FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U /S 158BD, NO SUCH DOCUMENT IS TRACEABLE ON THE RECORD OF OFFI CE EVEN AFTER THE BEST EFFORTS. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THIS LETTER IS ALSO COUNTERSIGNED BY THE A.O. OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. ACIT, CIRCLE 48(1), NEW DELHI. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED T HE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT A CLEAR FINDING IS GIVEN BY TH E LD. CIT(A) THAT IT HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY THE A.O. IN HIS REMAND REPORT THAT NEITHER ANY SATISFACTION IS RECORDED IN THIS CASE BEFORE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 158BD OF THE I. T. ACT N OR ANY SEIZED MATERIAL WAS RECEIVED BY HIM. UNDER THESE FACTS, THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF MANISH MAHESHWARI (SUPRA) AND DECISION OF SPECIAL B ENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN THE CASE OF MANOJ AGGA RWAL (SUPRA) ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE AND WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD .CIT(A) AS P ER WHICH IT WAS HELD BY HIM THAT THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 158 BD I.T.A. NO. 19/DEL/2010 4/4 OF THE I. T. ACT IN THE CASE OF THIS ASSESSEE WITHO UT RECORDING OF THE SATISFACTION IS INVALID AND VOID A B-INITIO. WE, THEREFORE, CONFIRM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. 6. THIS DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED ON THE DATE OF HEARING I.E. 13 TH SEPTEMBER 2010. (A. D. JAIN) (A K GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 13 TH SEP., 2010 SP. COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT TRUE COPY: BY ORDER 4. CIT(A) 5. DR DY. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI