Alka Kapoor, Howrah V. ACIT, Circle - 47, Kolkata

ITSSA 23/KOL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9110 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 10-06-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 29-06-2009
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K K TRIPATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: S K PODDAR
• Keywords: Invalid notice; Search and seizure; Document seized; Period of limitation; Block assessment; Documents seized

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH - A , KOLKATA ( ) BEFORE . . , SHRI B.R.MITTAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER. /AND . . , , SHRI C.D. RAO, ACCOUNTANT M EMBER . ( . ) / I.T (SS) .A.NO. 23/KOL/2009 / BLOCK PERIOD 1989 - 90 TO 1999 - 2000 ALKA KAPOOR, P - 18, DOBSON LANE, 6 TH FLOOR HOWRAH - 711 101. C/O.S.D.VERMA (ADVOCATE), NO.7, RABINDRA SARANI , KOLKATA 700 001. - - - VERSUS - . ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE 47, KOLKATA. ( / A PPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / FOR THE APPELLANT : / SHRI S.K.PODDAR, AR / FOR THE RESPONDENT : / SHRI K.K.TRIPATHI, DR. / ORDER . . , SHRI B.R.MITTAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL FOR BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD FROM 1989 - 90 TO 1999 - 2000 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) DT.23.10.2008, ON THE FOLLOWIN G GROUNDS. 1 ) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - XXX - KOLKATA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.16,92,290 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD( 1 989 - 90 TO 1999 - 2000) ON THE BASIS OF INVALID NOTICE ISSUED UN DER SECTION 1 58BD DATED 28/05/2005. 2 ) WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE AL LEGED INVESTMENT OF RS. 10,10,150 AND RS.6,82,000/ - IN ASSESSMNTYEAR - 1994 - 95 & 1995 - 96 RESPECTIVELY STANDS BARRED BY LIMITATION AND THUS IT CAN NOT BE TAXED UNDER SECT ION 158BD BY ISSUE OF NOTICE DATED 28/05/2005. 3 ) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD / ALTER / MODIFY ANY OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE HEARING STAGE. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS GIVING RISE TO THIS APPEAL ARE THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAM PRAKASH KAPOOR AND OTHERS ON ( . ) / I.T (SS) .A.NO.23/KOL/2009 2 15.9. 199 8. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH SEIZED PAPERS/DOCUMENT MARKED AH - 2 PAGES 23 TO 34, THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XVII, KOLKATA NOTICED CERTAIN DEALINGS IN THE NAMEOF M/S.KAPOOR DISTRIBUTORS WITH M/S.B.B.FLAM ER LTD AND PAYMENTS OF RS.16,92,150 WAS FOUND NOTED THEREIN. PRIMAFACIE, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE SAID DEALINGS APPEARED TO BE UNDISCLOSED TRANSACTIONS OF SHRI RAKESH KAPOOR AND ACCORDINGLY PROCEEDINGS U/.158BD OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT,1961 WERE INITIATED AGAINS T HIM. SUBSEQUENTLY BLOCK ASSESS MENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 28.11.2002 TREATING THE SAID SUM OF RS.16,92,150 AS CONCEALED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF SHRI RAKESH KAPOOR. SHRI RAKESH KAPPOR FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE LEARNED CIT(A) VIDE HIS ORDER D T.29.3.2004 DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION WITH THE REMARK THAT THE SEIZED PAPER AS REFERRED RELATED TO KAPOOR DISTRIBUTORS. M/S.KAPOOR DISTRIBUTORS WAS THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE HEREIN. IT WAS FURTHER COMMENTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE INITIATED PROCEEDINGS U/S.158BD AGAINST THE ASSESEE SMT. ALKA KAPOOR. 3. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, PROCEEDINGS U/S.158BD OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE VIDE NOTICE DT.28.4.2005. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT COMPUTI NG THE CONCEALED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD OF RS.16,92,150 VIDE ORDER DT.29.5.2007. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY INTER ALIA CONTENDING THAT INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ASSESEE U/S.158BD IS ILLE GAL AND IS ALSO BARRED BY LIMITATION. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT IN VIEW OF THE FINDING GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE APPEAL FILED BY SHRI RAKESH KAPPOR THAT THE AMOUNT IS ASSESSABLE IN THE HANDS OF SMT. ALKA KAPPOR SINCE THE DOCUMENT RELATE D TO HER TRANSACTIONS, THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.158BD IS VALID. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FURTHER HELD THAT IN VIEW OF SECTION 153(3)(II) OF THE ACT, THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT BARRED BY LIMITATION. THEREFORE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED T HE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSMENT OF CONCEALED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSM ENT IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAM PRAKASH KAPOOR FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD WAS ( . ) / I.T (SS) .A.NO.23/KOL/2009 3 COMPLETED IN SEPTEMBER, 2000. HE SUBMITTED THAT PROCEEDINGS U/S.158BD, INITIATED AGAINST SHRI RAKESH KAOPOOR W A S ON 28 . 11.2000 I.E., AFTER COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT OF SHRI RAM PRAKASH KAPO OR, THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM THE SEARCH WAS CARRIED ON 15.9.19 9 8. HE SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S.158BD AGAINST SHRI RAKESH KAPOOR WAS NOT VALID AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE PERSON SEARCHED MUST RE CORD HIS SATISFACTION THAT SOME UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO THE PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON SEARCHED DURING THE COURSE OF HIS ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HEREIN, THERE IS NO SUCH SATISFACTION RECORDED OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE SEARCHED PERSON THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME DETECTED BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SUCH SATISFACTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE SEAR CH PERSON HAS TO BE RECORDED BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 158BE EITHER IN PROCEEDINGS U/S.158BC OR IN THE NOTE HANDING OVER MATERIAL SEIZED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF SUCH OTHER PERSON I.E., THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE ASSESSEE H EREIN. HE SUBMITTED THAT AFTER EXPIRY OF TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 158BE NO PROCEEDINGS U/S.158BD COULD NOT BE INITIATED. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS ABOVE SUBMISSIONS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, DELHI SPECIAL B ENCH IN THE CASE OF MANOJ AGGARWAL V DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, NEW DELHI[2008] 113 ITD 377 (DELHI) (SB) (PARAGRAPHS 110 TO 113). THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS ALSO HELD IN THE CA SE OF MANISH MAHESHWARI V. ACIT ( 289 ITR 341 ) THAT THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED U/S.158BD ARE REQUIRED TO BE STRICTLY COMPLIED WITH TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XIV - B AGAINST THE PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON WHO IS PUT TO SEARCH U/S.132 OR REQUISITION U/S.132A IS MADE. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE ISSUE IS ALSO CONSIDERED BY THE HON BL E DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DELHI AUTO FINANCE (P) LTD., V. JCIT (300 ITR 83), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT IF THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENT O F RECORDING THE SATISFACTION TO THE FACT THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE, OTHER THAN THE PERSON SEARCH, IS LACKING, THERE IS NO VALID ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION AND BLOCK ASSESSMENT U/S.158BD IS INVALID. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ( . ) / I.T (SS) .A.NO.23/KOL/2009 4 PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153( 3)(II) OF THE ACT DOES NOT APPLY IN RESPECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE BLOCK PERIOD AS THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS UNDER CHAPTER XIV - B IS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED U/S.158BE OF THE ACT . THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S.158BD OF THE ACT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IS INVALID AND HENCE, THE ASSESSMENT MADE SHOULD BE QUASHED. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.158BD OF THE ACT WAS INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE EFFECT OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF SECTION 153(3)(II) OF THE ACT, THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS BY ISSUING N OTICE U/S.158BD OF THE ACT IS NOT BARRED BY LIMITATION. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) BE CONFIRMED. 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES AND THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE CASES CITED BEFORE US. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153 OF THE ACT WHICH PRESCRIBES THE TIME LIMIT FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT AND RE - ASSESSMENT VIS - - VIS THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BE OF T HE ACT WHICH PRESCRIBES TIME LIMIT FOR COMPLETION OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT. 8. WE OBSERVE THAT THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WERE INITIATED ADMITTEDLY ON THE BASIS OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) DT.29.3.2004 THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.16,92,150 WHI CH WAS ASSESSED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERIOD IN THE HANDS OF MR. RAKESH KAPOOR DOES NOT RELATE TO HIM BUT RELATES TO THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. NOW THE QUESTION ARISES AS TO WHETHER THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDING FOR BLOCK PERIOD ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATION/FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S.158BD OF THE ACT IS VALID AND WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. 9. CHAPTER XIV - B OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT,1961 IS A SPECIAL CHAPTER DEALING WITH ASSESSMENT O F SEARCH CASES. THE OBJECT OF CHAPTER XIV - B IS TO BRING TO TAX UNDISCLOSED INCOME WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED DURING THE BLOCK PERIOD. ITAT, CALCUTTA BENCH HAS HELD IN THE CASE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XXVII V. M.L. DALMIYA & CO. LTD., [2006] 98 ITD 93 (KOL.) THAT CHAPTER XIV IS AN INDEPENDENT CODE. THE INCOME WHICH IS NOT UNDISCLOSED I.E., ( . ) / I.T (SS) .A.NO.23/KOL/2009 5 INCOME WHICH HAS BEEN DULY DISCLOSED IN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS MAINTAINED IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER CH APTER XIV - B OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XIV APPLY TO THOSE INCOMES WHICH COULD BE BROUGHT WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 10. WE OBSERVE THAT SECTION 158BE OF THE ACT PROVIDES TIME LIMIT FOR COMPLETION OF BLOCK ASSESSMEN T. HOWEVER, SECTION 153 OF THE ACT PROVIDES TIME LIMIT FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT AND RE - ASSESSMENT. ON PERUSAL OF SECTION153 OF THE ACT, WE OBSERVE THAT SUB - SECTION (1) PROVIDES TIME LIMIT FOR MAKING ASSESSMENT U/S.143 OR U/S.144 OF THE ACT. FURTHER SUB - SECTIONS (1A) AND (1B) OF SECTION 153 HAVE BEEN INSERTED BY FINANCE ACT, 2005 W.E.F. 1.4.2006, WHICH DEALS WITH THE ASSESSMENT TO BE MADE U/S.115WE OR SECTION 115WF OR SECTION 115WG. FURTHER SUB - SECTION (2) OF SECTION153 DEALS WITH TIME LIMIT FOR COMPLETI NG ASSESSMENT TO BE MADE U/S.147 OF THE ACT. FURTHER SUB - SECTION (2A) OF SECTION 153 IS IN THE FORM OF A PROVISO TO SUB - SECTIONS (1), (1A), (IB) AND (2) OF SECTION 153 OF THE ACT. FURTHER SUB - SECTION (3) OF SECTION 153 PROVIDES THAT THE TIME LIMIT PROVIDED IN SUB - SECTIONS (1),(1A), (1B) AND (2) SHALL NOT APPLY TO THE ASSESSMENT, REASSESSMENT OR RE - COMPUTATION AS MADE ON THE ASSESSEE OR ANY PERSON IN CONSEQUENCE OF OR TO GIVE EFFECT TO ANY FINDING OR DIRECTION INTER ALIA CONTAINED IN AN ORDER PASSED U/S.250 OR IN ORDER OF ANY COURT IN A PROCEEDINGS OTHERWISE THAN BY WAY OF APPEAL OR REFERENCE UNDER THIS ACT. ON PERUSAL OF SECTION 153 OF THE ACT, IT IS OBSERVED THAT SECTION 153 OF THE ACT PROVIDES TIME LIMIT IN RESPECT OF COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT AND RE - ASSESS MENT UNDER THE SECTIONS MENTIONED THEREIN AND SUB - SECTION (3) OF SECTION 153 EXCLUDES THE TIME LIMIT PROVIDED IN SUB - SECTIONS (1), (1A), (IB) AND (2). THUS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE TIME LIMIT AS PROVIDED FOR COMPLETION OF THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT U/S.158BE OF T HE ACT FOR INITIATION /COMPLETION OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF THE PERSON SEARCHED AND/OR PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSONS SEARCHED IS NOT GOVERNED BY THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 153 OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD IT IS RELEVANT TO MENTION THAT EXP LANATION OF SECTION 153 PROVIDES THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH ARE TO BE CONSIDERED IN COMPUTING THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 153 OF THE ACT AND EXPLANATION 1 OF SECTION 158BE ALSO PROVIDES SEPARATELY THE CASES TO BE CONSIDERED IN COMPUT ING THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 158BE OF THE ACT. ON PERUSAL OF BOTH THE ( . ) / I.T (SS) .A.NO.23/KOL/2009 6 EXPLANATIONS, WE OBSERVE THAT THEY ARE NOT IDENTICAL. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT FOR COMPLETING THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT, THE TIME LIMIT AS PRO VIDED U/S.153 OF THE ACT WILL NOT APPLY BUT THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED IN SECT 158BE WILL BE APPLICABLE. 11. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, WE OBSERVE THAT THE SEARCH IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAM PRAKASH KAPOOR WAS CONDUCTED ON 15.9.19 9 8. THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S WERE INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S.158BD OF THE ACT IS DT.28.4.2005. HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF MANISH MAHESHWARI V. ACIT ( 289 ITR 341) HELD THAT CHAPTER XIV - B COULD BE INVOKED AGAINST A PERSON OTHER THAN PERSON WHO IS PUT T O SEARCH U/S.132 OR THE REQUISITION U/S.132A IS MADE, THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED U/S.158BD ARE REQUIRED TO BE STRICTLY COMPLIED WITH. HONBLE APEX COURT HAS FURTHER HELD THAT THE SATISFACTION CONTEMPLATED U/S.158BD OF THE ACT IS REQUIRED TO BE RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE PERSON SEARCHED AT ANY TIME BUT NOT LATER THAN THE FINALIZATION OF ASSESSMENT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD UNDER CHAPTER XIV - B IN THE CASE OF THE PERSON PUT TO SEARCH OR REQUISITIONED IS MADE , AS THE CASE MAY BE. WE OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF THE PERSON PUT TO SEARCH WAS MADE IN SEPTEMBER, 2000 AND WHEREAS THE NOTICE U/S.158BD OF THE ACT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US WAS ISSUED ON 28.5.2005. NOT ONLY THIS, HONBLE DELHI HIGH HAS HELD IN THE CASE O F C T V. DAWN VI E W FARMS (P) LTD., (2009) 17 8 TAXMAN 15 THAT SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE PERSON SEARCHED MUST BE RECORDED TO THE EFFECT THAT THERE IS UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGING TO ANY PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON IN RESPECT OF WHOM THE SE ARCH WAS MADE U/S.132. SECONDLY, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED HAS TO BE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION TO ASSESS OTHER PERSON I.E., THE PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON ON WHOM THE SEARCH W AS MADE. IT WAS HELD THAT ONLY THEREAFTER THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN PROCEED U/S.158BD AGAINST SUCH PERSONS. HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HELD IT IS ONLY THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE PERSON IN RESPECT OF WHOM THE SEARCH IS CONDUCTED THAT IS RELEVANT . WE OBSERVE THAT THE AFORESAID DECISIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE SPECIAL BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF MANOJ AGGARWAL V. DCIT (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE FIRST AND FOREMOST REQUIREMENT IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAKING THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT IN ( . ) / I.T (SS) .A.NO.23/KOL/2009 7 CASE OF PERSON SEARCHED, HAS TO BE SATISFIED THAT UNDISCLOSED INCOME DETECTED BELONGS TO SOME PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON SEARCHED, AND, THUS THE SECTION ITSELF CONTEMPLATES SATISFACTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAKING THE ASSESSMENT IN CASE OF PERSON SEARCHED. IT WAS HELD THAT RECORDING OF SATISFACTION IS MANDATORY AND IMPARITY BEFORE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S.158BD OF THE ACT. 12. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DECISIONS AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE US, WE OBSERVE THAT TH ERE IS NO SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE PERSON SEARCHED THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH DISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ON THE OTHER HAND, WE OBSERVE THAT THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED AGAINST SHRI RAKESH KAPOOER U/S.158BD OF THE ACT AND THUS IF AT ALL THERE WAS SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE PERSON SEARCHED THAT COULD BE IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAKESH KAPPOR AND NOT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE HEREIN. 13. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT T HE INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY ISSUING NOTICE US.158BD OF THE ACT IS NOT ONLY BARRED BY LIMITATION BUT IS ALSO INVALID. THEREFORE, WE REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND QUASH THE ASSESSMENT BY ALLOWING THE GROUNDS OF APPE AL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON DT. 25.06.2010 SD/ - SD/ - ( . . ) (C.D. RAO), ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . . ), ( B.R.MITTAL ), JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) DATE : 25.06.2010 ( /) H.K.PADHEE / SNR.PRIVATE SECRETARY. ( . ) / I.T (SS) .A.NO.23/KOL/2009 8 - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT : ALKA KAPOOR, P - 18, DOBSON LANE, 6 TH FLOOR HOWRAH - 711 101. C/O.S.D.VERMA (ADVOCATE), NO.7, RABINDRA SARANI , KOLKATA 700 001. 2 / THE RESPONDENT - ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE 47, KOLKATA. 3. / THE C IT, 4. ( )/ THE CIT(A), 5. / DR, KOLKATA BENCH 6. GUARD FILE . / TRUE COPY , / BY ORDER , / DEPUTY REGISTRAR .