The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji., Panaji V. Shri Edgar Braz Afonso., Goa

ITSSA 25/PAN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3461 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 11 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 04-10-2021
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRA BHAT JHA
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRINIVAS NAYAK
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Document seized; Principle of natural justice; Period of limitation; Deemed dividend; Assessment record; Block assessment; Time period of passing order; Revised return; Reason to believe; Documents seized; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 2(22)(e); 201; 64; 158BC; 158B(b); 43; 48; 13; 153; 158BD; 22; 153C; 131; 145; 27; 148; 132; 144; 15

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI, BENCH PANAJI , , BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, AM IT (SS) A NO S . 23 TO 27 /P AN/201 5 ITA NO.41 3 /PAN/2015 (AY: 20 07 - 2008 TO 201 2 - 201 3 ) DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PUNDALIK NIWAS, RUA - DE - OUREM, PANAJI, GOA VS SHRI EDGAR BRAZ AFONSO, H.NO.E - 374, TIVAI VADDO, CALANGUTE, BARDEZ, GOA PAN : A BOPA 3001 A ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) AND CROSS OBJECTION NOS. 91 TO 95 /PAN/2016 (AY: 2007 - 2008 TO 201 1 - 201 2 ) (ARISING OUT OF IT(SS)A NOS. 23 TO 27 /PAN/2015) SHRI EDGAR BRAZ AFONSO, H.NO.E - 374, TIVAI VADDO, CALANGUTE, BARDEZ, GOA PAN : A BOPA 3001 A VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PUNDA LIK NIWAS, RUA - DE - OUREM, PANAJI, GOA ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) /REVENUE BY : SHRI PRABHAT JHA, CIT DR /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SHRINIVAS NAYAK, CA / DATE OF HEARING : 06 /1 0 /202 1 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMEN T : 07 /10 /202 1 / O R D E R PER BENCH : TH IS ORDER SHALL GOVERN THE DISPOSAL OF SIX APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007 - 2008 TO 2012 - 2013 AND FIVE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISING OUT OF THE ABOVE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE. 2. FIRST WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IN IT(SS)A NOS. 23 TO 27 /PAN/ 2015 IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE - SHRI EDGAR BRAZ AFONSO ALONG WITH THE CROSS OBJECTIONS (CO NOS. 91 TO 95 /PAN/2016) FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIE NCE, THE FACTS AND GROUNDS MENTIONED IT (SS) A NOS . 23 - 27 /PAN/2015 & ITA NO. 41 3 /PAN/201 5 CO NOS.91 - 95/PAN/201 6 2 IN THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IN IT(SS)A NO. 23 /PAN/2015 FOR A.Y.2007 - 2008 ARE TAKEN TO BE CONSIDERED, WHEREIN THE GROUNDS MENTIONED AS UNDER : - 1. WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE L D. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ACCEPTING FRESH EVIDENCE AND NOT GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER SUB - RULE (3) TO RULE 46A OF IT RULES, 1962 . 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 81,51,723/ - ADVANCED BY MODELS CONSTRUCTION PV T. LTD. TO THE FIRM M/S MODELS REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS CANNOT BE TREATED AS DIVIDEND UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SHARE HOLDING EXCEEDING 10% OF THE VOTING POWER IN THE SAID COMPANY AND ALSO HAVE SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN THE SAID FIRM? 4. FOR THE ABOVE GROUNDS AND ANY ADDITIONAL GROUNDS THAT MAY BE AGITATED DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 2, PANAJI MAY BE QUASHED AND THAT OF THE AO RESTORED. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED FIVE CROSS OBJECTION S ARISING OUT OF THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE . FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE SHALL REPRODUCE THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 2008 IN CO NO.91/PAN/2 015, WHICH READ AS UNDER : - 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX [APPEALS] IN SO FAR AS IT IS AGAINST THE RESPONDENT / CROSS OBJECTOR ARE OPPOSED TO LAW, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE, NATURAL JUSTICE, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE RESPONDEN T / CROSS OBJECTOR DENIES HIMSELF LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED UNDER SECTION 143[3] R.W.S. 153C OF THE ACT UNDER THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE GROUNDS THAT: - I. THE PROCEEDING INITIATED U/S 153 C IS VOID AB INITIO IN AS MUCH AS THEY ARE ILLEGAL AND ULTRA VIRES THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 153 C R.W.S 153 A OF THE ACT; II. THE MANDATORY SATISFACTION, IF ANY, ARRIVED AT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153 C OF THE ACT IS INADEQUATE AND INSUFFICIENT TO ASSUME JURISDICTION U/S 153 C OF THE ACT. III. THE INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDING U/S 153C OF THE ACT IS NOT ON THE BASIS OF 'ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED OR IT (SS) A NOS . 23 - 27 /PAN/2015 & ITA NO. 41 3 /PAN/201 5 CO NOS.91 - 95/PAN/201 6 3 REQUISITIONED BELONGS TO THE RESPONDENT /CROSS OBJECTOR', WHICH IS SINE Q UA NON FOR PROCEEDINGS TO BE INITIATED U/S 153 C AND THEREFORE THE CONSEQUENT ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 153C IS NULL AND VOID - AB - INITIO. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX [APPEALS] FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT A FINDING THAT 'ANY MONEY, B ULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED BELONGS TO A PERSON OTHER THAN A PERSON SEARCHED U/S 153A' IS A SINE QUA NON FOR MAKING A VALID ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT AND THER E BEING NO SUCH FINDING IN THE CASE OF THIS RESPONDENT /CROSS OBJECTOR, THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT FAILS AS BEING NULL AND VOID, AB INITIO. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX [APPEALS] FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED BY THE LEARN ED ASSESSING OFFICER IS BAD IN LAW AS THE MANDATORY CONDITIONS TO INVOKE THE JURISDICTION U/S. 153C OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 DID NOT EXIST OR HAVING NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSMENT MADE IS BAD IN LAW FOR WANT OF REQUISITE JURISDIC TION. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX [APPEALS] FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 153 C & THE CONSEQUENT ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS BAD IN LAW AS THE ASSESSMENTS U/S 153 A COULD NOT HA VE BEEN MADE LEGALLY IN THE HANDS OF THE PERSON SEARCHED, NAMELY M/S. MODEL CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD, AND CONSEQUENTLY NO LEGAL AND VALID S ATISFACTION COULD BE DRAWN U/S 153 C IN THE CASE OF THE RESPONDENT /CROSS OBJECTOR. 6. WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE RESPONDENT / CROSS OBJECTOR DENIES HIMSELF LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED OVER AND ABOVE THE TOTAL INCOME REPORTED BY THE RESPONDENT / CROSS OBJECTOR OF RS. 12 , 25 , 777 / - UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 7. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT TO SEEK WAIVER AS PER THE PARITY OF REASONING OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF KARANVIR SINGH 349 ITR 692, THE RESPONDENT / CROSS OBJECTOR DENIES ITSELF LIABLE TO BE CHARGED TO INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234 A, 234 B & 234 C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. FURTHER THE LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234 A, 234 B & 234 C OF THE ACT IS ALSO BAD IN LAW AS THE PERIOD, RATE, QUANTUM AND METHOD OF CALCULATION ADOPTED ON WHICH INTEREST IS LEVIED ARE ALL NOT DISCERNABLE AND ARE WRONG O N THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 8. THE RESPONDENT / CROSS OBJECTOR CRAVES LEAVE OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL, TO ADD, ALTER, DELETE OR SUBSTITUTE ANY OF THE GROUNDS URGED ABOVE. 9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF TH E CROSS OBJECTION, YOUR RESPONDENT / CROSS OBJECTOR HUMBLY PRAY THAT THE CROSS OBJECTION MAY BE ALLOWED IN THE INTEREST OF EQUITY AND JUSTICE. IT (SS) A NOS . 23 - 27 /PAN/2015 & ITA NO. 41 3 /PAN/201 5 CO NOS.91 - 95/PAN/201 6 4 4 . CONCISE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT PETER VAZ AND EDGAR AFONSO WERE THE PARTNERS HOLDING 50% STAKE RESPECTIVEL Y IN THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM FUNCTIONING UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE MODELS REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS. THEY ALSO HELD EQUAL STAKE AS SHAREHOLDERS OF THE COMPANY MODELS CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED. BOTH THE FIRM AS WELL AS THE COMPANY WERE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINE SS OF REAL ESTATE, CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED IN THE PREMISES ASSESSEE FIRM ON 31.01.2012 U/S.132 OF THE ACT IN PURSUANCE THEREOF, SEARCH NOTICES WERE ISSUED ON 30.07.2012 TO PETER VAZ AND EDGAR AFONSO CALLIN G UPON THEM TO FILE RETURNS OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y.2006 - 2007 TO 2011 - 2012. FOR THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT HAD ALREADY BEEN COMPLETED U/S.143(1) OF THE ACT. BOTH PETER VAZ AND EDGAR AFONSO RESPONDED TO THE NOTICES U/S.153C OF THE ACT SUB MITTING INTER ALIA THE RETURNS ORIGINAL FILED BY THEM U/S.139(1) OF THE ACT MAY BE TREATED AS RETURNS IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES U/S.153C OF THE ACT. 5 . DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, PETER VAZ AND EDGAR AFONSO WERE REQUIRED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE LOANS GIVEN BY THE SAID COMPANY TO THE SAID FIRM SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND IN THE HANDS OF PETER VAZ AND EDGAR AFONSO IN TERMS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. BOTH OF THEM FILED DETAILED RESPONSES SUBMITTING HOW ACCORDING TO THE M, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT WERE NOT AT ALL ATTRACTED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 6 . THE AO VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.03.2014 HOWEVER, HELD THAT THE AMOUNTS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF THE SAID FIRM AS PAYABLE TO THE IT (SS) A NOS . 23 - 27 /PAN/2015 & ITA NO. 41 3 /PAN/201 5 CO NOS.91 - 95/PAN/201 6 5 COMPANY WERE LIKE LOANS AND ADVANCES AND ACCORDINGLY, DIRECTED THAT THE SAME BE TREATED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S.2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. THESE AMOUNTS WERE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEES PETER VAZ AND EDGAR AFONSO AND BROUGHT TO ADDITIONAL TAX. 7 . A GGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.03.2014, THE ASSESSEES PETER VAZ AND EDGAR AFONSO APPEALED TO THE CIT(A). BY ORDER DATED 28.07.2015, THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE APPEALS AND HELD THAT THE AMOUNTS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF THE SAID FIRM COULD NOT NE TRE ATED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S.2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS DATED 31.03.2014 MADE BY THE AO WERE SET ASIDE. 8. AGGRIEVED THEREBY, THE REVENUE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE APPEALS, THE ASSESSES R EQUESTED THE ACIT TO FURNISH THEM A COPY OF SATISFACTION FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S.153C OF THE ACT. SUCH COPIES WERE FURNISHED TO THE ASSESSES ON 22.08.2016 OR THEREABOUTS. HOWEVER, THE DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE RELIED UPON BY THE ACIT WERE NOT FURNISHED TO TH E ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSES BY LETTERS DATED 25.08.2016 SOUGHT THE SAME. THERE WAS NO RESPONSES TO THESE LETTERS DATED 25.08.2016. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED CROSS OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL BY A CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 02.12.2016 ALLOWED THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE BUT DISMISSED THE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSED BY REFUSING TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 248 DAYS IN FILING OF THE SA ME . 9 . FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH CO URT AND THE HONBLE HIGH COURT REMANDED IT (SS) A NOS . 23 - 27 /PAN/2015 & ITA NO. 41 3 /PAN/201 5 CO NOS.91 - 95/PAN/201 6 6 THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF ITAT FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION OF APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AFTER PERMITTING THE ASSESSES TO RAISE THE ISSUE OF NON - COMPLIANCE WITH THE JURISDICTIONAL PARAMETERS OF SECTION 153C OF TH E ACT. THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ARE AS UNDER : - 50. IN PARAGRAPH 27 OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER MADE BY THE ITAT, THERE IS A REFERENCE TO THE ITAT SPECIFICALLY INQUIRING WITH THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE TO PRODUCE THE SATIS FACTION NOTE RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE PERSON SEARCHED. THE ORDER RECORDS THAT THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT FILES ARE NOT IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE, BUT IN THE EVENT, THE TRIBUNAL WAS PLEASED TO ADMIT THE CROSS - O BJECTIONS, THEN, THE SAME WILL BE PRODUCED AS THE FILES WERE SPLIT AND WERE AT THE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT CENTRAL CIRCLE AS ALSO THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE ASSESSEES. THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE ITAT ALSO REFERS TO VERIFICATION OF CERTAIN FACTS IN THE CONTEXT OF ACTION UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE IT ACT. 51. HAVING REGARD TO THE AFORESAID, WE AGREE WITH MS. LINHARES THAT THE MATTER WILL HAVE TO BE REMANDED TO THE ITAT FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION OF APPEALS INSTITUTED BY THE REVENUE AFTER PERMITTING THE ASSESSEES TO RAISE THE ISSUE OF NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE JURISDICTIONAL PARAMETERS OF SECTION 153C OF THE IT ACT. 52. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER IN SO FAR AS IT CONCERNS THE PRESENT ASSESSEES AND REMAND THE MATTERS TO THE ITAT WITH A DIRECTION TO PERMIT THE ASSESSEES TO RAISE THE ISSUE OF COMPLIANCE OR NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE JURISDICTIONAL PARAMETERS NECESSARY TO INITIATE ACTION UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE IT ACT. AT THE SAME TIME, WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT ALL CONTENTIONS OF AL L PARTIES, INCLUDING, OTHER CONTENTIONS RAISED IN THESE APPEALS ARE EXPRESSLY KEPT OPEN AND MAY NOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN DECIDED BY US ONE WAY OR OTHER. THE ONLY REASON WE HAVE NOT ADVERTED TO THE OTHER ISSUES IS THAT IF THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE IS ULTIM ATELY UPHELD BY THE ITAT, THEN IT MAY NOT BE NECESSARY TO DECIDE THE OTHER ISSUES. 53. THE PARTIES TO NOW APPEAR BEFORE THE ITAT ON 26TH APRIL 2021 AT 11.00 A.M. AND FILE AUTHENTICATED COPY OF THIS ORDER. WE REQUEST THE ITAT TO DISPOSE OF SUCH APPEALS AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE BY GRANTING A FULL OPPORTUNITY TO BOTH THE ASSESSEES AS WELL AS THE REVENUE. 10 . NOW, THE ABOVE APPEALS HAVE BEEN LISTED FOR HEARING BEFORE US FOR DECIDING THE ISSUES AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH IT (SS) A NOS . 23 - 27 /PAN/2015 & ITA NO. 41 3 /PAN/201 5 CO NOS.91 - 95/PAN/201 6 7 COUR T, MENTIONED IN PARAGRAPH 52 SUPRA OF THE HIGH COURTS ORDER AND THE JURISDICTIONAL GROUNDS REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE. 11 . L D. DR FOR THE REVENUE HAD FILED CONSOLIDATED PAPER BOOK IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSEE ON 01.09.2021 AND AT PAGE 4 OF THE PAPER BOOK THE O RDER SHEET WAS PLACED WHICH IS AS UNDER : - F.NO. DCIT/C - L(L)/PNJ/2021 - 22 DATE : 01.09.2021 TO, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(DR) ITAT PANAJI, GOA SIR, SUB: SUBMISSION OF RECORDS IN 153C CASES - FOR PRODUCING BEFORE THE ITAT PUNE - REG. REF.: 1. THE CIT(D R) PANAJI LETTER IN F.NO. INFO/CIT(DR)/ITAT/PNJ/2021 - 22, DT. 11.08.2021. 2. THIS OFFICE LETTER NO. MISC./DCIT - L(L)/PNJ/2021 - 22 DTD. 17 - 08 - 2021 ******* KINDLY REFER TO THE ABOVE. I AM HERE TO SUBMIT THE CERTIFIED COPIES OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR INITIATION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 IN THE CASES MENTIONED BELOW. I MAY ALSO SUBMIT HERE THAT AS VERIFIED FROM ASSESSMENT RECORDS R ECEIVED ON TRANSFER FROM DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 PANAJI ON 13.07.2016 THAT THGRE ARE ONLY SINGLE ORDER SHEET MADE IN RESPECT OF ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF MR EDGAR BRAZ AFONSO. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS COVERED U/S 5A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C WERE ALSO INITIATED IN THE CASE OF HIS SPOUSE MRS. VANDA AFONSO FOR THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEARS. FURTHER, NO SATISFACTION NOTES FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FORWARDING OF INFORMATION IN THE CURRENT CASES FOR INITIATION OF PRO CEEDINGS U/S 153C ARE AVAILABLE ON RECORDS. I AM FURNISHING HEREWITH THE CERTIFIED COPIES OF FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS FOR SUBMISSION BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITAT PUNE: S NAME OF ASSESSEE A.Y. NAME OF ASSESSEE A.Y. 1 MR. EDGER BRAZAFONSO[ABC>PA30 01A] 2006 - 07 MRS. VANDA AFONSO[ABC)PA3000B]. 2006 - 07 2 MR. EDGER BRAZAFONSO[ABOPA3001A] 2007 - 08 MRS. VANDA AFONSO[ABOPA3000B]. 2007 - 08 3 MR. EDGER BRAZAFONSO[ABOPA3001A] 2008 - 09 MRS. VANDA AFONSO[ABC>PA3000B]. 2008 - 09 4 MR. EDGER BRAZAFONSO[ABC>PA3001A] 2009 - 10 MRS. VANDA AFONSO[ABOPA3C)OOB]. 2009 - 10 5 MR. EDGER BRAZAFONSO[ABOPA3001A] 2010 - 11 MRS. VANDA AFONSO[ABOPA3000B], 2010 - 11 6 MR. EDGER BRAZAFONSO[ABOPA3001A] 2011 - 12 MRS. VANDA AFONSO[ABQPA3000B]. 2011 - 12 IT (SS) A NOS . 23 - 27 /PAN/2015 & ITA NO. 41 3 /PAN/201 5 CO NOS.91 - 95/PAN/201 6 8 1. COPY OF THE ORDER SHEET IN THE CASE OF MR EDGAR B AFONSO FOR AY 2006 - 07 TO 2011 - 12. COPY OF THE SE IZED DOCUMENTS VIDE EXHIBIT NO. A/EBA/01 [THIS HAS BEEN INADVERTENTLY MENTIONED AS A/EBA/10 IN THE ORDER SHEET. HOWEVER, AS SEEN FROM SEIZURE ANNEXURE A/EBA DTD.31.01.2012 ITS ITEM 01 (COPY OF THE ANNEXURE IS ATTACHED FOR IMMEDIATE REFERENCE)] 3. COPY OF THE CASH SEIZURE PANCHANAMA DTD. 31.01.2012 IN SUPPORT OF CASH SEIZURE MENTIONED IN ORDER SHEET. 12 . THE LD.DR HAD ALSO PRODUCED THE ORDER SHEET (SATISFACTION NOTE) IN THE CASE OF EDGAR BRAZ AFONSO TO THE FOLLOWING EFFECT : - ORDER SHEET SHRI EDGAR BRAZ AF ONSO DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH & SEIZURE U/S.132 CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF M/S MODELS CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. ON 31.01.2012, DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO SHRI EDGAR AFONSO WERE SEIZED VIDE A/ EBA/10, SO ALSO AMOUNTING TO RS.3,00,000/ - WAS SEIZED FROM THE RESIDEN TIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AT TIVAI WADDO, CALANGUTE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I AM SATISFIED THAT THE CASE IS COVERED BY THE PROVISION OF SECTION 153C. HENCE ISSUE NOTICE U/S.153C. ISSUE NOTICE U/S.153C FOR THE A.Y.2006 - 07 TO 2011 - 12. SD/ - DEPUTY C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI - GOA 13. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. DR THAT THE ORDER SHEET IS THE SATISFACTION NOTE PREPARED BY THE AO IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US FOR THE PURPOSES OF INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.15 3C OF THE ACT. BESIDE THAT, THE LD. DR HAD ALSO FILED LETTER DATED 06.10.2021 ALONG WITH THE ORDERSHEET (SATISFACTION NOTE) RECORDED IN THE FILE OF M/S MODELS CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.. THE LETTER ALONG WITH ORDERSHEET ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : - IT (SS) A NOS . 23 - 27 /PAN/2015 & ITA NO. 41 3 /PAN/201 5 CO NOS.91 - 95/PAN/201 6 9 IT (SS) A NOS . 23 - 27 /PAN/2015 & ITA NO. 41 3 /PAN/201 5 CO NOS.91 - 95/PAN/201 6 10 14. ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVESAID DOCUMENT, IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE LD. DR THAT THE SATISFACTION WAS NOT ONLY RECORDED IN THE FILE OF THE SEARCHED PERSON BUT ALSO IN THE FILE OF THE OTHER PERSON, NAMELY, ASSESSEE BEFORE US. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE AT THE TIME OF INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.153C OF THE ACT HAS RECORDED SATISFACTION AS REQUIRED UNDER THE LAW AND, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO ILLEGALITY IN THE EYES OF LAW. 15. THE LD. DR, ON THE DIRECTION OF BENCH HAD ALSO PRODUCED THE SEIZED DOCUMENT NAMEL Y A/ EBA/10 FOR THE PERUSAL OF THE BENCH. THE COPIES OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT WERE ALREADY AVAILABLE WITH THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE. 16. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D R THAT EVEN THE DOCUMENT SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF MODEL CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. W ERE BELO NGING TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THE ACTION ON THE PART OF THE REVENUE TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS U/S.153C OF THE ACT WAS WHOLLY CORRECT. 17. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THAT FIRSTLY NO SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED IN THE CASE FIL E OF M/S MODEL CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. AS IS APPARENT FROM THE OR D ER SHEET REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE. IN FACT, THE SAID ORDER SHEET ONLY PROVIDES RECORDING OF SATISF ACTION IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE NAMELY MODEL CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. AND FURTHER THE NOTICES WERE ISSUED U/S.153A OF THE ACT NOT UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. 18. THE SECOND ARGUMENT SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR WAS THAT EVEN THE ORDRESHEET ENTRY (SATISFACTION NOTE) PRODUCED BEFORE US IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A SATISFACTION NOTE AS THERE IS NEITHER IT (SS) A NOS . 23 - 27 /PAN/2015 & ITA NO. 41 3 /PAN/201 5 CO NOS.91 - 95/PAN/201 6 11 A REFERENCE OF SEIZED MATERIAL NOR THERE IS A REFERENCE OF PAN NUMBER NOR THERE IS A REFERENCE OF REASONS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.153C OF THE ACT. FURTHER, IT WAS ALSO THE CONTENTION THAT THERE IS NO SATISFACTION RECOR DED BY THE AO THAT THE DOCUMENT SEIZED NAMELY A/ EBA/10 BELONGS TO THE OTHER PERSON, NAMELY, THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. T HIRDLY LD. AR HAD FILED THE CHART TABULATING THE NATURE CHARACTER AND THE NAME OF THE PERSON TO WHOM THE DOCUMENTS BELONGED IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ABOVE SAID DOCUMENTS WERE DULY INVENTORISED AND IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR THAT NONE OF THE DOCUMENT BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, HE HAD ALSO DRAWN OUR ATTENTION THAT THE DOCUMENT SEIZED DO NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE AND ARE NOT RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSES OF MAKING THE ASSESSMENT. 19. LASTLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAD NOT MADE ANY ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT, WHICH IS CLEAR FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE LD. AR HAD ALSO FILED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION S IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS WHICH IS TO BE FOLLOWING EFFECT : - WE REFER TO OUR EARLIER PAPER BOOK DATED 24/09/2021 AND WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT AS BELOW: 1. THE ASSSESSE HAD RAISED THE JURISDICTIONAL GROUND NO. 2 & 3 IN THE GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTIONS F ILED WITH THE HON. ITAT, THE COPY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS ENCLOSED. AN NEX - 1, WHICH IS REITERATED IN PARA 5 PAGE 4 OF THE ORDER OF THE HON. HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA, IN ASSESSEE CASE. 2. AS PER PARA 52 AT PAGE 23/24 OF THE ORDER, THE HON. HIGH COURT H AS REMANDED BACK THE MATTER WITH A DIRECTION TO PERMIT THE ASSESSES TO RAISE THE ISSUE OF COMPLIANCE OR NON - COMPLIANCE WITH JURISDICTIONAL PARAMETERS NECESSARY TO INITIATE ACTION UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE IT ACT. , ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE RAISE THE COMPL IANCE / NON - COMPLIANCE OF THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PARAMETERS TO BE COMPLIED BY THE LD AO. IT (SS) A NOS . 23 - 27 /PAN/2015 & ITA NO. 41 3 /PAN/201 5 CO NOS.91 - 95/PAN/201 6 12 1) WHETHER THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON HAS RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION AS REQUIRED U/S 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT1961, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CIRCULAR NO. 24/2015 DATED 31/12/2015 ISSUED BY CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES. 2) WHETHER THE SATISFACTION RECORDED DESCRIBES THE MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED BELONGS OR BELONG TO A PERSON OTHER T HAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 153A . 3) WHETHER THE MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED ARE INC RIMINATING IN NATURE. 4) WHETHER THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO IN HIS ORDER PASSED U/S 153C OF THE IT ACT, ARE MADE BASED ON THE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS. GIVEN THE ABOVE, WE WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT AS BELOW IN REGARD TO ABOVE JUDICIAL PARAMETERS: 1) WHETHER THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON HAS RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION AS REQUIRED U/S 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT1961, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CIRCULAR NO. 24/2015 DATED 31/12/2015 ISSUED BY CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES. ADMITTEDLY RELYING UPON THE PAPER BOOK OF THE DEPA RTMENT (DR) THERE IS NO SATISFACTION RECORDED IN THE FILE OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. AS PER THE PAPER - BOOK FILED BY THE LD DR (DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE), SATISFACTION IS RECORDED ONLY IN THE FILE OF THE ASSESSEE AND NO SATISFACTION IS RECORDED IN THE FILE OF THE SEARCHED PERSON, FOR ISSUE OF THE NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT1961. WE RELY UPON THE CIRCULAR NO. 24/2015 DATED 31/12/2015 ISSUED BY CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, WHICH IS BASED ON HON. SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF CULCUTTA KNITWE ARS, WHEREIN THE JURISDICTION TO ASSESS U/S 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT1961, HAS TO BE INITIATED FROM THE FILE OF THE AO OF THE PERSON SEARCHED AND ASSESSED U/S 153A, WHEREIN THE AO HAS TO RECORD HIS SATISFACTION AS TO MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VA LUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED BELONGS OR BELONG TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 153A . AF TER RECORDING HIS SATISFACTION THE AO HAS TO TRANSFER THE DOCUMENTS TO THE JURISDICTIONAL AO. 2) WHETHER THE SATISFACTION RECORDED DESCRIBES THE MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED OR IT (SS) A NOS . 23 - 27 /PAN/2015 & ITA NO. 41 3 /PAN/201 5 CO NOS.91 - 95/PAN/201 6 13 REQUISIT IONED BELONGS OR BELONG TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 153A . AS PER THE PAPER - BOOK SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT LD DR, THERE IS NO DESCRIP TION OF ANY DOCUMENT PERTAINING TO THE ASSESEE EXCEPT ONE DOCUMENT OF CASH SEIZURE OF RS.3.00 LACS. THE DOCUMENTS OF FD RECEIPTS ARE OF SMT. VANDA AFONSO AND SOME OTHER PERSONS. THE REFERRED DOCUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DULY EXPLAINED AND ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT DURING THE PROCEEDINGS. WE RELY UPON THE MADEEHA ENTERPRISES V/S ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, IT(SS)A NO. 91 TO 96/PAN/2O16 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI, WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT THE ORDER SHEET IS NOT OF SATISFACTIO N IN SO FAR AS THERE IS NO IDENTIFICATION AS WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED OR WHAT IS THE UNDISCLOSED ASSETS OR INCOME WHICH IS FOUND AS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE, AS SUCH THE NOTICES ISSUED ON THE ASSESSEE U/S 153C AND CONSEQUENTLY ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) R.W S 153C STANDS ANNULLED. 3) WHETHER THE MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED ARE INCRIMINATING IN NATURE. THE CASH FOUND OF RS.3.00 LACS, DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS WAS AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESEE AND HAS BEEN DULY EXPLAINED DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. WE ENCLOSE THE COPY OF THE RECORDED STATEMENT U/S 131 OF THE ASSESEE, WHEREBY THE CASH FOUND WAS RECONCILED AND EXPLAINED AT Q3 OF THE STATEMENT, WH ICH HAS BEEN DULY ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. AS SUCH NONE OF THE DOCUMENTS INCLUDING RS.3.00 LACS CASH SEIZURE ARE OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE. AN NEX - 2. AS NOTED THE DOCUMENTS AS PROVIDED BY THE LD DR AS PER THEIR PAPER - BOOK WERE NOT OF ANY INCRIMINATING NATURE, AS THE SAME ARE DULY ACCOUNTED, EXPLAINED AND ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT DURING THE PROCEEDINGS. WE NOTE THAT IN CIT VS. SINHGADH EDUCATION SOCIETY (SUPRA), HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT ONE OF THE JURISDICTIONAL CONDITIO NS PRECEDENT TO THE ISSUE OF A NOTICE U/S. 153C OF THE ACT IS THAT MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENT MUST BE SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 15 3C OF THE ACT. LEARNED CIT(A), THEREFORE, OBSERVED THAT IN ORDER TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT OF OTHER PERSON U/S. 153C OF THE ACT FOR IT (SS) A NOS . 23 - 27 /PAN/2015 & ITA NO. 41 3 /PAN/201 5 CO NOS.91 - 95/PAN/201 6 14 ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR EARLIER TO THE YEAR OF SEARCH, NOT ONLY A DIRECT CO - RELATION WITH THE DOCUMENT IS REQUIRED, BUT ALSO THA T SUCH DOCUMENTS MUST BE INCRIMINATING IN NATURE , NAMELY, SUCH DOCUMENTS FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH AND BELONGS TO OR PERTAINS TO OR RELATES TO THE ASSESSEE QUA THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN AN IDENTICAL ISSUE IN THE CASE OF M/S. SRI BALAJI CONSTRUCTIONS, KAKIN ADA IN ITA NO.387/VIZAG/2014 DATED 10/01/2018 AND DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT AND THE VIEW TAKEN BY THIS TRIBUNAL WE HOLD THAT NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153C WITHOUT HAVING INCRIMINATING MA TERIAL CANNOT SURVIVE, ACCORDINGLY QUASHED. 4) WHETHER THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO IN HIS ORDER PASSED U/S 153C OF THE IT ACT, ARE MADE BASED ON THE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS. THERE ARE NO ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO RELYING UPON THE DOCUMENTS NOTED BY THE AO TO ARRIVE AT HIS SATISFACTION. ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ARE U/S 2(22)(E) (DEEMED DIVIDEND), WHICH HAS ARISE OUT OF REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE PERSON SEARCHED. AS SUCH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE PERSON SEARCHED DO NOT QUALIFY TO BE DOCUMENTS OF OTH ER PERSON. WE RELY UPON, IN THE MATTER OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS RANGOLI BUILDTECH (P) LTD [TS - 7546 - ITAT - 2020(DELHI) - O] IN THE ITAT OF DELHI, WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT WE FIND, THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NS SOFTWARE (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT FAILURE OF THE AO TO RECORD A SPECIFIC SATISFACTION AS TO HOW THE RECOVERED MATERIAL BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE NOTE THAT PRECEDED THE NOTE ISSUED UNDER IT VITIATES THE ASSESSMENT. WE FIND THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PEP SICO (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT BEFORE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT CAN BE INVOKED, THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON MUST BE SATISFIED THAT THE SEIZED MATERIAL DOES NOT BELONG TO THE SEARCHED PERSON. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CANYON FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. VS. ITO, [399 ITR 202] = [TS - 5743 - HC - 2017(DELHI) - O], HAS HELD THAT IN ABSENCE OF CONCLUSION EITHER IN SATISFACTION NOTE THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS MENTIONED THERE IN BELONGED NOT TO THE SEARCHED PERSON, BUT, TO THE ASSESSEE MAKES THE 153C PROCEEDINGS INVALID. WE FIND, THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ARN INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA LTD.(SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 153C OF THE ACT IS PROSPECTIVE WITH EFFECT FROM 1ST JUNE, 2015. IN THE CASE OF RENU CONSTRUCTIONS PV T. LTD. (SUPRA), THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HELD IT (SS) A NOS . 23 - 27 /PAN/2015 & ITA NO. 41 3 /PAN/201 5 CO NOS.91 - 95/PAN/201 6 15 THAT PERTAINED TO ADDED WITH EFFECT FROM 01.06.2015 IS PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE. SINCE, IN THE INSTANT CASE, NO SATISFACTION HAS BEEN RECORDED IN THE FILE OF THE SEARCHED PERSON THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENT S BELONGED TO THE OTHER PARTY AND DO NOT BELONG TO THE SEARCHED PERSON, THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE DECISIONS CITED ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE HOLDING THAT THE JURISDICTION ASSUMED UNDER SECTION 153C IN THE C ASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. WE ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE SAME AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. AS SUCH WE HUMBLY REQUEST YOUR HONOUR TO TAKE THE ABOVE SUBMISSION ON RECORD AND DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL WHILE UPHOLDING NATURAL JUSTICE. 20. IN REBUTTAL, THE LD. DR HAD SUPPORTED THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. 21. THE BENCH, HAD ASKED THE LD. CITDR TO CONFIRM WHETHER ANY ADDITIONS WERE MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS OR NOT. THE LD. CITDR HAD FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT NO ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE AO BASED ON THE DOCUMENT SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH FROM THE PREMISES OF MODEL CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. 22 . WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 153C OF THE ACT AS AVAILABLE ON THE STATUTE BOOK ON 01.04.2014 WAS AS UNDER : - 153C. ASSESSMENT OF INCOME OF ANY OTHER PERSON. - [ (1) ] NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SECTION 139, SECTION 147, SECTION 148, SECTION 149, SECTION 151 AND SECTION 153 , WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED BELONGS OR BELONG TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 153A, THEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON [ AND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROCEED AGAINST EACH SUCH OTHER PERSON AND ISSUE SUCH OTHER PERSO N NOTICE AND ASSESS OR REASSESS INCOME OF SUCH OTHER PERSON IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A , IF, THAT ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED HAVE A IT (SS) A NOS . 23 - 27 /PAN/2015 & ITA NO. 41 3 /PAN/201 5 CO NOS.91 - 95/PAN/201 6 16 BEARING ON THE DETERMINAT ION OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF SUCH OTHER PERSON FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS REFERRED TO IN SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 153A] : PROVIDED THAT IN CASE OF SUCH OTHER PERSON, THE REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF INITIATION OF THE SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OR MAKING OF REQUISITION UNDER SECTION 132A IN THE SECOND PROVISO TO SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 153A SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF RECEIVING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON. [PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY BY RULES MADE BY IT AND PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, SPECIFY THE CLASS OR CLASSES OF CASES IN RESPECT OF SUCH OTHER PERSON, IN WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL NO T BE REQUIRED TO ISSUE NOTICE FOR ASSESSING OR REASSESSING THE TOTAL INCOME FOR SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SEARCH IS CONDUCTED OR REQUISITION IS MADE EXCEPT IN CASES WHERE ANY ASSES SMENT OR REASSESSMENT HAS ABATED.] [(2) WHERE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED AS REFERRED TO IN SUB - SECTION (1) HAS OR HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON AFTER THE DUE DATE FOR FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SEARCH IS CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 132 OR REQUISITION IS MADE UNDER SECTION 132A AND IN RESPECT OF SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR (A) NO RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN FUR NISHED BY SUCH OTHER PERSON AND NO NOTICE UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 HAS BEEN ISSUED TO HIM, OR ( ) A RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY SUCH OTHER PERSON BUT NO NOTICE UNDER SUB - SECTION (2) OF SECTION 143 HAS BEEN SERVED AND LIMITATION OF SE RVING THE NOTICE UNDER SUB - SECTION (2) OF SECTION 143 HAS EXPIRED, OR ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT, IF ANY, HAS BEEN MADE, BEFORE THE DATE OF RECEIVING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURI SDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON, SUCH ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ISSUE THE NOTICE AND ASSESS OR REASSESS TOTAL INCOME OF SUCH OTHER PERSON OF SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR IN THE MANNER PROVIDED IN SECTION 153A. ] 23. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON WAS REQUIRED TO RECORD THE SATISFACTION THAT THE MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED DURING THE SEARCH CONDUCTED U/S.132 OF THE IT (SS) A NOS . 23 - 27 /PAN/2015 & ITA NO. 41 3 /PAN/201 5 CO NOS.91 - 95/PAN/201 6 17 ACT BELONGED TO A PERSO N OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, THEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR DOCUMENT OR ASSET SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE AO HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH PERSON. IN OUR VIEW THE RECORDING SATISFACTION IS ESSENTIAL NO T ONLY BY THE AO OF THE PERSON SEARCHED U/S.153A OF THE ACT BUT ALSO U/S.153C OF THE ACT. 24. F OR ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A/ 153C OF THE ACT BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER, THERE SHOULD BE A SATISFACTION AS REGARD TO AN INFERENCE OF LIABIL ITY BE RECORDED AND UPON SUCH SATISFACTION THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER CAN PROCEED TO ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A/153C OF THE ACT. FURTHER, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO ARRIVE AT A SATISFACTION AS REGARD TO THE INFERENCE OF LIABILITY BASED ON THE INCRIMINATING MATERIALS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CERTAIN UNDISCLOSED INCOME WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. REFERENCE MAY BE MADE TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK [P] LTD., REPORTED IN 385 ITR 34 6. THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE COURT ARE AT PAGE 367 & 368 AT PARA 49 & 50 OF THE REPORTED JUDGEMENT: '49. ON A CONJOINT READING OF THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS, IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT A SEARCH CAN TAKE PLACE ONLY WHEN A CONCERNED OFFIC ER HAS INFORMATION AND REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY PERSON IS IN POSSESSION OF ANY VALUABLE ASSETS WHICH HAS NOT BEEN OR WOULD NOT BE DISCLOSED UNDER THE ACT. IN SUCH A CASE, A SEARCH CAN TAKE PLACE. FOLLOWING THE SEARCH, IF ANY THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER D OCUMENTS, ANY VALUABLE ASSETS IS OR ARE FOUND IN THE POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF ANY PERSON IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR VALUABLE ASSETS COULD BE SEIZED. UNDER SECTION 153A, THE SATISFACTION REGARDING AN INFERENCE O F LIABILITY MUST IT (SS) A NOS . 23 - 27 /PAN/2015 & ITA NO. 41 3 /PAN/201 5 CO NOS.91 - 95/PAN/201 6 18 BE RECORDED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO ISSUE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE I.E. THE PERSON SEARCHED......................................................... IN SUCH A CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO ISSUE NOTICE TO ASSESSEE OR REASSESS INCO ME OF THE OTHER PERSON UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. THUS, THE FACT THAT SEARCH HAS BEEN CONDUCTED WOULD NOT JUSTIFY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A. IT IS ONLY DURING A VALID SEARCH WHEN CERTAIN INCRIMINATING MATERIALS ARE DETECTED, NOTICE COULD BE ISSUED. 50. CHAPTER XIV - B WHICH DEALS WITH SPECIAL PROCEDURE FOR ASSESSMENT OF SEARCH CASES DEALS WITH UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS A RESULT OF SEARCH, THE COMPUTATION THEREOF AND SUCH OTHER PROVISIONS... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. . ... ...... ...... ...... ... ... ...... ......... ... ... ....... THUS, WHAT EMERGES IS THAT THE SINE QUA NON FOR THE PURPOSES OF ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO A SEARCH OPERATION IS DETECTION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME. IN FACT, THE INITIATION OF SEA RCH PROCEEDINGS IS ALSO BASED ON POSSESSION OF INFORMATION AND REASON TO BELIEVE THAT A PERSON IS IN POSSESSION OF CERTAIN VALUABLE ASSETS, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN OR WOULD NOT BE DISCLOSED UNDER THE ACT. THE SAME IS NOTHING BUT UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS DEFINED IN CLAUSE (B) OF SECTION 158B(B) OF THE ACT. THIS BECOMES EVEN MORE CLEAR ON A COMPARISON OF SECTION 132(1)(C) WITH SECTION 158B(B) OF THE ACT. IT IS FOR THE ABOVE REASON THAT SECTIONS 153A AND 153C BEING WITH A NON OBSTANTE CLAUSE IN ORDER TO MAKE THESE P ROVISIONS EXCLUSIVE OF SECTIONS 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 AND 153 OF THE ACT. IF A SEARCH OPERATION DOES NOT LEAD TO DETECTION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS DEFINED IN CHAPTER XIV - B OF THE ACT, THEN NO PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED IN REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT ALREADY C OMPLETED. ALSO, IF THERE IS NO DETECTION OF ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME, THEN THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR PENDING ASSESSMENT TO ABATE. THUS, WHEN PARTICULARS OF INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURN IS ALREADY AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SUCH INCOME CANNOT FOR M PART OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME EVEN IF SUCH RETURN IS FILED BEYOND THE TIME LIMIT, BUT BEFORE SEARCH, AS LONG AS THEY RELATE TO ANY YEAR COVERED IN THE BLOCK. THUS, A BLOCK ASSESSMENT IS JUSTIFIED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FOUND DURING SEARCH AND THE M ATERIALS OR INFORMATION RELATABLE THERETO. 25. FROM THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT REPRODUCED ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT ONLY UPON A VALID SEARCH AND UPON CERTAIN INCRIMINATING MATERIALS ARE DETECTED, THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A/ 153C IT (SS) A NOS . 23 - 27 /PAN/2015 & ITA NO. 41 3 /PAN/201 5 CO NOS.91 - 95/PAN/201 6 19 OF THE ACT CAN BE ISSUED. FURTHER, THE HONBLE COURT HAS ALSO HELD THAT WHEN PARTICULARS OF INCOME IS DECLARED IN THE RETURN IS ALREADY AVAILABLE, SUCH INCOME CANNOT FORM PART OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND ASSESSMENT IS JUSTIFIED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCES FO UND DURING SEARCH AND THE MATERIALS OR INFORMATION RELATABLE THERETO. THUS, AS PER THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IF AND ONLY IF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIALS ARE FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF A VALID SEARCH THEN AND THEN ONLY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A/ 153C OF THE ACT CAN BE ISSUED. THE NOTICES ISSUED UNDER SECTION 153A/ 153C OF THE ACT CANNOT BE ISSUED WITHOUT RECORDING THE SATISFACTION AS REGARD TO THE INFERENCE OF LIABILITY BASED ON THE SEIZED INCRIMINATING DOCUME NTS. IT IS SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT UNLESS THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL LEADING TO AN INFERENCE OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME IS FOUND, INVOCATION OF SECTION 153A/ 153C IS NOT POSSIBLE. REFERENCE MAY BE MADE TO THE DECISION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE CI T VS. KABUL CHAWLA, REPORTED IN 380 ITR 573 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT: COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS CAN BE INTERFERED WITH BY THE AO WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153 A ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SOME INCRIMINATING MATERIAL UNEARTHED DURING THE COURSE OF SE ARCH OR REQUISITION OF DOCUMENTS OR UNDISCLOSED INCOME OR PROPERTY DISCOVERED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED OR NOT ALREADY DISCLOSED OR MADE KNOWN IN THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. 26. WE MAY ALSO REFER THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE AP EX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SINGHAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11080 OF 2017 DATED 29.08.2017 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT: 18) THE ITAT PERMITTED THIS ADDITIONAL GROUND BY GIVING A REASON THAT IT WAS A JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE TAKEN UP ON THE BAS IS OF FACTS ALREADY ON IT (SS) A NOS . 23 - 27 /PAN/2015 & ITA NO. 41 3 /PAN/201 5 CO NOS.91 - 95/PAN/201 6 20 THE RECORD AND, THEREFORE, COULD BE RAISED. IN THIS BEHALF, IT WAS NOTED BY THE ITAT THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WHICH WAS SEIZED HAD TO PERTAIN TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS IN QUESTION AN D IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE SEIZED DID NOT ESTABLISH ANY CO - RELATION, DOCUMENT - WISE, WITH THESE FOUR ASSESSMENT YEARS. SINCE THIS REQUIREMENT UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT IS ESSENTIAL FOR ASSESSMENT UNDER THAT PROVISION, IT BE COMES A JURISDICTIONAL FACT. WE FIND THIS REASONING TO BE LOGICAL AND VALID, HAVING REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. PARA 9 OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT REVEALS THAT THE ITAT HAD SCANNED THROUGH THE SATISFACTION NOTE AND THE MATERIAL WHICH WAS DISCLOSED THEREIN WAS CULLED OUT AND IT SHOWED THAT THE SAME BELONGS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 OR THEREAFTER. AFTER TAKING NOTE OF THE MATERIAL IN PARA 9 OF THE ORDER, THE POSITION THAT EMERGES THEREFROM IS DISCUSSED IN PARA 10. IT WAS SPECIFICALLY RE CORDED THAT THE COUNSEL FOR THE DEPARTMENT COULD NOT POINT OUT TO THE CONTRARY. IT IS FOR THIS REASON THE HIGH COURT HAS ALSO GIVEN ITS IMPRIMATUR TO THE AFORESAID APPROACH OF THE TRIBUNAL. THAT APART, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE RESPONDENT, A RGUED THAT NOTICE IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000 - 01 AND 2001 - 02 WAS EVEN TIME BARRED. 19) WE, THUS, FIND THAT THE ITAT RIGHTLY PERMITTED THIS ADDITIONAL GROUND TO BE RAISED AND CORRECTLY DEALT WITH THE SAME GROUND ON MERITS AS WELL. ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT AFFIRMING THIS VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL IS, THEREFORE, WITHOUT ANY BLEMISH. 27. FROM THE READING OF THE ABOVE NOTED LEGAL PRINCIPLE ENUNCIATED BY VARIOUS COURTS IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT; A) THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON IS REQUIR ED TO RECORD A SATISFACTION THAT THE DOCUMENT SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH BELONGS TO THE OTHER PERSON AND ARE INCRIMINATING IN NATURE; B) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER RECORDING HIS SATISFACTION IN HIS FILE, SHALL TRANSFER , HIS SATISFACTION NOTE ALONG W ITH THE MATERIAL SEIZED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING THE JURISDICTION OVER THE OTHER PERSON. C) THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE OTHER PERSON SHALL RECORD THE SATISFACTION IN HIS FILE AND THE REASONS FOR COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED WERE INCRIMINATING IN NATURE AND THE IT (SS) A NOS . 23 - 27 /PAN/2015 & ITA NO. 41 3 /PAN/201 5 CO NOS.91 - 95/PAN/201 6 21 ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE INCOME IN THE PREVIOUS YEARS ON ACCOUNT OF SEARCHED DOCUMENTS AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ISSUE THE NOTICE U/S.153C OF THE ACT. 28. FOR THE ABOV E SAID PURPOSE, WE MAY FRUITFULLY RELY UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. CALCUTTA KNITWEARS (2014) 6 SCC 444 , W HEREIN THE HONBLE SUPREME COUR T HAS LAID DOWN THE LAW IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER : - 18. IN ORDER TO RESOLVE THE CONTROVERSY, CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT REQUIRE TO BE NOTICED BY US. 19. CHAPTER XIV - B OF THE ACT IS A SPECIAL PROVISION CARVED OUT BY THE LEGISLATURE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSMENTS IN CASES PERTAINING TO SECTIONS 132 AND 132A OF THE ACT. THE SAID CHAPTER WAS INTRODUCED BY THE FINANCE ACT , 1995 WITH EFFECT FROM 01.07.1995 AND COMPRISES SECTIONS 158B TO 158BH OF THE ACT. THE PROVISIONS UNDER THIS CHAPTER WERE MA DE INAPPLICABLE IN CASE OF SEARCH INITIATED UNDER SECTION 132 OR SECTION 132A AFTER 31.05.2003 BY INTRODUCTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CHAPTER AS SECTION 158BI VIDE THE FINANCE ACT , 2003 WITH EFFECT FROM 01.06.2003. THE LIS BEFORE US REQUIRES EXAMINATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SAID CHAPTER, PARTI CULARLY SECTION 158BD . 20. SECTION 158B OF THE ACT IS THE DICTIONARY CLAUSE. IT PROVIDES FOR THE DEFINITION OF BLOCK PERIOD AND UNDISCLOSED INCOME . FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CASE, A REFERENCE TO THE DEFINITION OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 158B(B) IS NECESSARY AND, THEREFORE, IT IS NOTICED. THE SAME READS AS UNDER: UNDISCLO SED INCOME' INCLUDES ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR ANY INCOME BASED ON ANY ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR TRANSACTIONS, WHERE SUCH MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY, VALUABLE ARTICLE, THING, ENTRY IN THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENT OR TRANSACTION REPRESENTS WHOLLY OR PARTLY INCOME OR PROPERTY WHICH HAS NOT BEEN OR WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT [OR ANY EXPENSE, DEDUCTION OR ALLOWANCE CLAIMED UNDER THIS ACT WHICH IS FOUND T O BE FALSE]. 21. SECTIONS 158BC AND 158BD OF THE ACT ARE MACHINERY PROVISIONS. SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT PROVIDES THE PROCEDURE FOR BLOCK ASSESSMENT AND SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT PROVIDES FOR ASSESSMENTS IN THE CASE OF AN UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF ANY OTHER PERSON. THE SAID SECTIONS ARE RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CASE AND, THEREFORE, THEY ARE EXTRACTED. THEY READ AS UNDER: SECTION 158BC . PROCEDURE FOR BLOCK ASSESSMENT. IT (SS) A NOS . 23 - 27 /PAN/2015 & ITA NO. 41 3 /PAN/201 5 CO NOS.91 - 95/PAN/201 6 22 WHERE ANY SEARCH HAS BEEN CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 132 OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS ARE REQUISITIONED UNDER SECTION 132A , IN THE CASE OF ANY PERSON, THEN, - [(A) THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL, (I) IN RESPECT OF SE ARCH INITIATED OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ANY ASSETS REQUISITIONED AFTER THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 1995 BUT BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF JANUARY, 1997 SERVE A NOTICE TO SUCH PERSON REQUIRING HIM TO FURNISH WITHIN SUCH TIME NOT BEING LESS THAN FIFTEEN D AYS; (II) IN RESPECT OF SEARCH INITIATED OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ANY ASSETS REQUISITIONED ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF JANUARY, 1997, SERVE A NOTICE TO SUCH PERSON REQUIRING HIM TO FURNISH WITHIN SUCH TIME NOT BEING LESS THAN FIFTEEN DAYS B UT NOT MORE THAN FORTY - FIVE DAYS, AS MAY BE SPECIFIED IN THE NOTICE A RETURN IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM AND VERIFIED IN THE SAME MANNER AS A RETURN UNDER CLAUSE (I) OF SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 , SETTIN G FORTH HIS TOTAL INCOME INCLUDING THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD: PROVIDED THAT NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 IS REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROCEEDING UNDER THIS CHAPTER: PROVI DED FURTHER THAT A PERSON WHO HAS FURNISHED A RETURN UNDER THIS CLAUSE SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO FILE A REVISED RETURN;] (B) THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROCEED TO DETERMINE THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERIOD IN THE MANNER LAID DOWN IN SECTION 158BB AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 142 , SUB - SECTIONS (2) AND (3) OF SECTION 143 [ SECTION 144 AND SECTION 145 ]SHALL, SO FAR AS MAY BE, APPLY; (C) THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ON DETERMINATION OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERIOD IN ACCORDANCE WITH T HIS CHAPTER, SHALL PASS AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT AND DETERMINE THE TAX PAYABLE BY HIM ON THE BASIS OF SUCH ASSESSMENT; (D) THE ASSETS SEIZED UNDER SECTION 132 OR REQUISITIONED UNDER SECTION 132A SHALL BE DEALT WITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132B .] *** *** *** SECTION 158BD . UNDISCLO SED INCOME OF ANY OTHER PERSON. WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO ANY PERSON, OTHER THAN THE PERSON WITH RESPECT TO WHOM SEARCH WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 132 OR WHOSE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ANY ASSETS WERE REQUISITIONED UNDER SECTION 132A THEN, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON AND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROCEED [UNDER SECTION 158 BC] AGAINST SUCH OTHER PERSON AND THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER SHALL APPLY ACCORDINGLY. 22. SECTION 158BC SPEAKS OF PROCEDURE FOR ASSESSMENT OF A PERSON SEARCHED UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS ARE REQUISITIONED UNDER SECTION 132A . THE LIMITATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPLETION OF THE BLOCK ASSESSMENTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT IS AS PROVIDED IT (SS) A NOS . 23 - 27 /PAN/2015 & ITA NO. 41 3 /PAN/201 5 CO NOS.91 - 95/PAN/201 6 23 UNDER SECTION 158BE(1)(A) OF THE ACT, THAT IS THE TIME LIMIT FOR COMPLETION OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT. 23. SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT PROVIDES FOR UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF ANY OTHER PERSO N. BEFORE WE PROCEED TO EXPLAIN THE SAID PROVISION, WE INTEND TO REMIND OURSELVES OF THE FIRST OR THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION OF A FISCAL LEGISLATION. IT IS TIME AND AGAIN REITERATED THAT THE COURTS, WHILE INTERPRETING THE PROVISIONS OF A FISCAL LEGISLATION SHOULD NEITHER ADD NOR SUBTRACT A WORD FROM THE PROVISIONS OF INSTANT MEANING OF THE SECTIONS. IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT THE FOREMOST PRINCIPLE OF INTERPRETATION OF FISCAL STATUTES IN EVERY SYSTEM OF INTERPRETATION IS THE RULE OF STRICT INTERPR ETATION WHICH PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE ARE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS, RECOURSE CANNOT BE HAD TO THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION OTHER THAN THE LITERAL RULE (SWEDISH MATCH AB V. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD, INDIA, AIR 2004 SC 4 219, CIT V. AJAX PRODUCTS LTD. [1965] 55 ITR 741 (SC)). 24. WE MAY GAINFULLY REFER TO THE CAPE BRANDY SYNDICATE V. INLAND REVENUE COMMISSIONERS [1921] 1 KB 64 AT 71 WHICH INVOLVED THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT 1915 WHICH IMPOSED EXCESS PROFITS DUTY ON TRADE OR B USINESSES COMMENCED AFTER THE OUTBREAK OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR IN 1914. BY SUBJECTING THE LEGISLATION TO A STRICT LITERAL INTERPRETATION, ROWLATT J. HELD THAT THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT 1915, IN ISOLATION, DID NOT APPLY TO BUSINESSES THAT COMMENCED AFTER THE O UTBREAK OF WAR IN 1914 AND OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: THE PRINCIPLE IN FAVOUR OF A STRICT LITERAL APPROACH SIMPLY MEANS THAT IN A TAXING ACT ONE HAS TO LOOK MERELY AT WHAT IS CLEARLY SAID. THERE IS NO ROOM FOR ANY INTENDMENT. THERE IS NO EQUITY ABOUT A TAX. THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION AS TO A TAX. NOTHING IS TO BE READ IN, NOTHING IS TO BE IMPLIED. ONE CAN ONLY LOOK FAIRLY AT THE LANGUAGE USED. 25. IN COMMISSIONER OF STAMP DUTIES (NSW) V. SIMPSON, (1917) 24 CLR 209 BARTON J., CITING VISCOUNT HALDANE IN LUMSDEN V INLAND REVENUE COMMISSIONERS, [1914] AC 877, STATED THE FOLLOWING: THE DUTY OF JUDGES IN CONSTRUING STATUTES IS TO ADHERE TO THE LITERAL CONSTRUCTION UNLESS THE CONTEXT RENDERS IT PLAIN THAT SUCH A CONSTRUCTION CANNOT BE PUT ON THE WORDS. THIS RULE IS E SPECIALLY IMPORTANT IN CASES OF STATUTES WHICH IMPOSE TAXATION. THE COURT IN SIMPSON CASE (SUPRA) SOUGHT TO DETERMINE WHETHER A DEED POLL CONSTITUTED A SETTLEMENT FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 49 OF THE STAMP DUTIES ACT, 1898 (NSW). SECTION 3 WHICH DEFINED THE WORD SETTLEMENT AS MEANING ANY CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT WAS EXAMINED. THE COURT BY ADOPTING A STRICT LITERAL APPROACH HELD THAT ONLY A CONTRACT OR AN AGREEMENT COULD CONSTITUTE A SETTLEMENT AND THAT SECTION 49 PROVIDING FOR DEED POLL WAS NOT APPLICABLE AND THEREFORE, THE TAXPAYER DID NOT HAVE TO PAY ANY STAMP DUTY. 26. LORD GRANWORTH IN GRUNDY V. PINNIGER, (1852) 1 LJ CH 405 HAS OBSERVED THAT: TO ADHERE AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE TO THE LITERAL MEANING OF THE WORDS USED, IS A CARDINAL RULE FROM WHICH IF WE DEPART WE LAUNCH INTO A SEA OF DIFFICULTIES WHICH IT IS NOT EASY TO FATHOM. THAT IS TO SAY, ONCE THE LITERAL RULE IS DEPARTED, THEN ANY NUMBER OF IT (SS) A NOS . 23 - 27 /PAN/2015 & ITA NO. 41 3 /PAN/201 5 CO NOS.91 - 95/PAN/201 6 24 I NTERPRETATIONS CAN BE PUT TO A STATUTORY PROVISION, EACH JUDGE HAVING A FREE PLAY TO PUT HIS OWN INTERPRETATION AS HE LIKES. THIS WOULD BE DESTRUCTIVE OF THE EDIFICE OF FISCAL LEGISLATIONS WHICH IMPOSE ECONOMIC DUTIES AND SANCTIONS. 27. IN TAXING STATUTES , EVEN IF THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION RESULTS IN HARDSHIP OR INCONVENIENCE, IT HAS TO BE FOLLOWED (G.P. SINGH'S PRINCIPLES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATIONS, 12TH ED, 2010, LEXIS NEXIS BUTTERWORTHS WADHWA NAGPUR; BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, 5TH ED., LEXIS NEXIS, P. 863; VEPA P. SARATHI, INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES, 5TH ED., EASTER BOOK COMPANY, CHAPTER VIII, TAXING STATUTES). THIS COURT IN CIT V. KESHAB CHANDRA MANDAL, AIR 1950 SC 265 HAS HELD THAT HARDSHIP OR INCONVENIENCE CANNOT ALTER THE MEANING OF THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED BY THE LEGISLATURE IF SUCH MEANING IS CLEAR AND APPARENT. HENCE DEPARTURE FROM THE LITERAL RULE SHOULD ONLY BE DONE IN VERY RARE CASES, AND ORDINARILY THERE SHOULD BE JUDICIAL RESTRAINT TO DO SO.( PANDIAN CHEMICALS LTD. V. C.I.T ., 2003(5) SCC 590, NARSIRUDDIN V. SITA RAM AGARWAL, AIR 2003 SC 1543, BHAIJI V. SUB - DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THANDLA, 2003(1) SCC 692, J.P. BANSAL V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR., AIR 2003 SC 1405, STATE OF JHARKHA ND AND ANR. V. GOVIND SINGH : JT 2004(10) SC 349, JINIA KEOTIN V. K.S. MANJHI, 2003 (1) SCC 730, SHIV SHAKTI CO - OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY V. SWARAJ DEVELOPERS, AIR 2003 SC 2434, GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED V. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, 2002 (4) SCC 297 AND UNION OF INDIA V. HAMSOLI DEVI, 2002 (7) SCC 273) 28. THE AUSTRALIAN HIGH COURT IN FEDERAL COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION V. WESTRADERS PTY LTD, (1980) 144 CLR 55 CONSIDERED THE SCOPE OF SECTION 36A OF THE INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT, 1936(CTH), WHICH ON A LITERAL INTER PRETATION ALLOWED THE TAXPAYER TO MAKE A PROFIT AND STILL CLAIM A LOSS FOR TAX PURPOSES. THE COMMISSIONER ARGUED THE TAXPAYERS CONDUCT AMOUNTED TO A TAX AVOIDANCE SCHEME AND SHOULD THEREFORE BE DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 260 OF THE INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT , 1936(CTH). THE COURT HELD THAT UNDER A LITERAL INTERPRETATION SECTION 36A COULD APPLY TO ALLOW THE TAXPAYER TO CLAIM A LOSS. BARWICK CJ, SPEAKING FOR THE MAJORITY RELIED ON THE DECISION IN INLAND REVEN UE COMMISSIONERS V. WESTMINSTER (DUKE), [1936] AC 1 WHICH ADVOCATED THE LITERAL APPROACH BE APPLIED WHEN INTERPRETING TAXATION LEGISLATION AND STATED THE FOLLOWING: IT IS FOR THE PARLIAMENT TO SPECIFY, AND TO DO SO, IN MY OPINION, AS FAR AS LANGUAGE WILL PERMIT, WITH UNAMBIGUOUS CLARITY, THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WILL ATTRACT AN OBLIGATION ON THE PART OF THE CITIZEN TO PAY TAX. THE FUNCTION OF THE COURT IS TO INTERPRET AND APPLY THE LANGUAGE IN WHICH THE PARLIAMENT HAS SPECIFIED THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES. THE COUR T IS TO DO SO BY DETERMINING THE MEANING OF THE WORDS EMPLOYED BY THE PARLIAMENT ACCORDING TO THE INTENTION OF THE PARLIAMENT WHICH IS DISCOVERABLE FROM THE LANGUAGE USED BY THE PARLIAMENT. IT IS NOT FOR THE COURT TO MOULD OR TO ATTEMPT TO MOULD THE LANGUA GE OF THE STATUTE SO AS TO PRODUCE SOME RESULT WHICH IT MIGHT BE THOUGHT THE PARLIAMENT MAY HAVE INTENDED TO ACHIEVE, THOUGH NOT EXPRESSED IN THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE EMPLOYED 29. IN COOPER BROOKES (WOLLONGONG) PTY LTD V. FEDERAL COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION (1981 ) 147 CLR 297 IT IS HELD THAT IN A IT (SS) A NOS . 23 - 27 /PAN/2015 & ITA NO. 41 3 /PAN/201 5 CO NOS.91 - 95/PAN/201 6 25 TAXING STATUTE IF THE LANGUAGE IS UNAMBIGUOUS, DEPARTING FROM THE LITERAL APPROACH MAY LEAD JUDGES TO PUT THEIR OWN IDEAS OF JUSTICE OR SOCIAL POLICY IN PLACE OF THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE. SIMILAR VIEW WAS ESPOUSED IN C & J CLARK LTD V. INLAND REVENUE COMMISSIONERS, [1975] 1 WLR 413 AND BP REFINERY (WESTERNPORT) PTY LTD V. HASTINGS SHIRE, (1977) 180 CLR 266. 30. IN HEPPLES V. FCT, (1991) 173 CLR 492, THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA UNEQUIVOCALLY FAVOURED THE PRINCIPLE THAT TA XATION LEGISLATION SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO A STRICT LITERAL INTERPRETATION AND OPINED THAT SUCH AN APPROACH WAS SUPPORTED BY COMMON SENSE. THEREIN, THE TAXPAYER, ON CEASING TO BE EMPLOYED, WAS PAID $40,000 BY HIS EMPLOYER IN EXCHANGE FOR THE TAXPAYER AGREEI NG THAT HE WOULD NOT CARRY ON OR BE INTERESTED IN CERTAIN BUSINESSES AND WOULD NOT DIVULGE ANY TRADE SECRETS. THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT WAS WHETHER OR NOT SUCH PAYMENT WOULD FORM PART OF THE TAXPAYERS ASSESSABLE INCOME FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT, 1936(CTH). IT WAS HELD THAT SINCE THE ACT DID NOT PROVIDE FOR SUCH PAYMENTS TO FORM PART OF A TAXPAYERS ASSESSABLE INCOME, THE PAYMENT WOULD NOT BE ASSESSABLE. 31. THIS COURT IN TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH HAS ASCR IBED PLAIN MEANING TO THE TERMS COMPUTER AND COMPUTER PROGRAMME IN A FISCAL STATUTE AND REITERATING THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN IN INLAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER CASE (SUPRA), OBSERVED THAT A COURT SHOULD NOT BE OVER ZEALOUS IN SEARCHING AMBIGUITIES OR OBSCURIT IES IN WORDS WHICH ARE PLAIN. 32. IN PRAKASH NATH KHANNA V. C.I.T., 2004 (9) SCC 686, THIS COURT HAS EXPLAINED THAT THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED IN A STATUTE IS THE DETERMINATIVE FACTOR OF THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT. THE LEGISLATURE IS PRESUMED TO HAVE MADE NO MISTAK E. THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT IT INTENDED TO SAY WHAT IT HAS SAID. ASSUMING THERE IS A DEFECT OR AN OMISSION IN THE WORDS USED BY THE LEGISLATURE, THE COURT CANNOT CORRECT OR MAKE UP THE DEFICIENCY. WHERE THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT IS CLEAR FROM THE LANGUAGE, THE COURT SHOULD GIVE EFFECT TO IT ( DELHI FINANCIAL CORPORATION V. RAJIV ANAND , 2004 (11) SCC 625; GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH V. ROAD ROLLERS OWNERS WE LFARE ASSOCIATION , 2004(6) SCC 210). 33. IN B. PREMANAND AND ORS.V. MOHAN KOIKAL AND ORS.,(2011)4 SCC 266 THIS COURT HAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: 32. THE LITERAL RULE OF INTERPRETATION REALLY MEANS THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO INTERPRETATION. IN OTHER WORDS, WE S HOULD READ THE STATUTE AS IT IS, WITHOUT DISTORTING OR TWISTING ITS LANGUAGE. 33. WE MAY MENTION HERE THAT THE LITERAL RULE OF INTERPRETATION IS NOT ONLY FOLLOWED BY JUDGES AND LAWYERS, BUT IT IS ALSO FOLLOWED BY THE LAY MAN IN HIS ORDINARY LIFE. TO GIVE A N ILLUSTRATION, IF A PERSON SAYS 'THIS IS A PENCIL', THEN HE MEANS THAT IT IS A PENCIL; AND IT IS NOT THAT WHEN HE SAYS THAT THE OBJECT IS A PENCIL, HE MEANS THAT IT IS A HORSE, DONKEY OR AN ELEPHANT. IN OTHER WORDS, THE LITERAL RULE OF INTERPRETATION SIMP LY MEANS THAT WE MEAN WHAT WE SAY AND WE SAY WHAT WE MEAN. IF WE DO NOT FOLLOW THE LITERAL RULE OF INTERPRETATION, SOCIAL LIFE WILL BECOME IMPOSSIBLE, AND WE WILL NOT UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER. IF WE SAY THAT A CERTAIN OBJECT IS A BOOK, THEN WE MEAN IT IS A IT (SS) A NOS . 23 - 27 /PAN/2015 & ITA NO. 41 3 /PAN/201 5 CO NOS.91 - 95/PAN/201 6 26 BO OK. IF WE SAY IT IS A BOOK, BUT WE MEAN IT IS A HORSE, TABLE OR AN ELEPHANT, THEN WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE WITH EACH OTHER. LIFE WILL BECOME IMPOSSIBLE. HENCE, THE MEANING OF THE LITERAL RULE OF INTERPRETATION IS SIMPLY THAT WE MEAN WHAT WE SAY A ND WE SAY WHAT WE MEAN. 34. THUS, THE LANGUAGE OF A TAXING STATUTE SHOULD ORDINARILY BE READ UNDERSTOOD IN THE SENSE IN WHICH IT IS HARMONIOUS WITH THE OBJECT OF THE STATUTE TO EFFECTUATE THE LEGISLATIVE ANIMATION. A TAXING STATUTE SHOULD BE STRICTLY CONS TRUED; COMMON SENSE APPROACH, EQUITY, LOGIC, ETHICS AND MORALITY HAVE NO ROLE TO PLAY. NOTHING IS TO BE READ IN, NOTHING IS TO BE IMPLIED; ONE CAN ONLY LOOK FAIRLY AT THE LANGUAGE USED AND NOTHING MORE AND NOTHING LESS. (J. SRINIVASA RAO V. GOVT. OF A.P. A ND ANR. 2006(13) SCALE 27, RAJA JAGADAMBIKA PRATAP NARAIN SINGH V. C.B.D.T., [1975] 100 ITR 698(SC)) 35. IT IS ALSO TRITE THAT WHILE INTERPRETING A MACHINERY PROVISION, THE COURTS WOULD INTERPRET A PROVISION IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT WOULD GIVE MEANING TO THE CHARGING PROVISIONS AND THAT THE MACHINERY PROVISIONS ARE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED BY THE COURTS. IN MAHIM PATRAM PRIVATE LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS., (2007) 3 SCC 668 THIS COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT: 20. A TAXING STATUTE INDISPUTABLY IS TO BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED. [SEE J. SRINIVASA RAO V. GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR., 2006(13)SCALE 27 ]. IT IS, HOWEVER, ALSO WELL - SETTLED THAT THE MACHINERY PROVISIONS FOR CALCULATING THE TAX OR THE PROCEDURE FOR ITS CALCULATION ARE TO BE CONSTRUED BY ORDINARY RULE OF C ONSTRUCTION. WHEREAS A LIABILITY HAS BEEN IMPOSED ON A DEALER BY THE CHARGING SECTION, IT IS WELL - SETTLED THAT THE COURT WOULD CONSTRUE THE STATUTE IN SUCH A MANNER SO AS TO MAKE THE MACHINERY WORKABLE. 21. IN J. SRINIVASA RAO (SUPRA), THIS COURT NOTICED T HE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT IN GURSAHAI SAIGAL V.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, PUNJAB, [1963] 1 ITR 48(SC) AND ISPAT INDUSTRIES LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI, 2006(202)ELT561(SC).IN GURSAHAI SAIGAL (SUPRA), THE QUESTION WHICH FELL FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THIS COURT WAS CONSTRUCTION OF THE MACHINERY PROVISIONS VIS - - VIS THE CHARGING PROVISIONS. SCHEDULE APPENDED TO THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT IS NOT MACHINERY PROVISION. IT IS A PART OF THE CHARGING PRO VISION. BY GIVING A PLAIN MEANING TO THE SCHEDULE APPENDED TO THE ACT, THE MACHINERY PROVISION DOES NOT BECOME UNWORKABLE. IT DID NOT PREVENT THE CLEAR INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE FROM BEING DEFEATED. IT CAN BE GIVEN AN APPROPRIATE MEANING. 36. A REFEREN CE TO THE OBSERVATIONS OF THIS COURT IN J.K. SYNTHETICS LIMITED AND BIRLA CEMENT WORKS AND ANOTHER V. COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER AND ANOTHER,(1994) 4 SCC 276 WOULD BE APPOSITE: 13. IT IS WELL - KNOWN THAT WHEN A STATUTE LEVIES A TAX IT DOES SO BY INSERTING A CHARGING SECTION BY WHICH A LIABILITY IS CREATED OR FIXED AND THEN PROCEEDS TO PROVIDE THE MACHINERY TO MAKE THE LIABILITY EFFECTIVE. IT, THEREFORE, PROVIDES THE MACHINERY FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF THE LIABILITY ALREADY FIXED BY THE CHARGING SECTION, AND THEN PROVIDES THE MODE FOR THE RECOVERY AND COLLECTION OF TAX, INCLUDING IT (SS) A NOS . 23 - 27 /PAN/2015 & ITA NO. 41 3 /PAN/201 5 CO NOS.91 - 95/PAN/201 6 27 PENAL PROVISIONS MEANT TO DEAL WITH DEFAULTERS. ORDINARILY THE CHARGING SECTION WHICH FIXES THE LIABILITY IS STRICTLY CONSTRUED BUT THAT RULE OF STRICT CONSTRUCTION IS NOT EXTENDED TO T HE MACHINERY PROVISIONS WHICH ARE CONSTRUED LIKE ANY OTHER STATUTE. THE MACHINERY PROVISIONS MUST, NO DOUBT, BE SO CONSTRUED AS WOULD EFFECTUATE THE OBJECT AND PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE AND NOT DEFEAT THE SAME. (WHITNEY V. COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND REVENUE 1926 A C 37, CIT V. MAHALIRAM RAMJIDAS (1940) 8 ITR 442 , INDIAN UNITED MILLS LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF EXCESS PROFITS TAX, BOMBAY, [1955] 27 ITR 20(SC) AND GURSAHAI SAIGAL V. CIT, PUNJAB, [1963] 1 ITR 48(SC) . 37. IT IS THE DUTY OF THE COURT WHILE INTERPRETING THE MACHINERY PROVISIONS OF A TAXING STATUTE TO GIVE EFFECT TO ITS MANIFEST PURPOSE. WHEREVER THE INTENTION TO IMPOSE LIABILITY IS CLEAR, THE COURTS OUGHT NOT BE HESITANT IN ESPOUSING A COMMONSENSE INTE RPRETATION TO THE MACHINERY PROVISIONS SO THAT THE CHARGE DOES NOT FAIL. THE MACHINERY PROVISIONS MUST, NO DOUBT, BE SO CONSTRUED AS WOULD EFFECTUATE THE OBJECT AND PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE AND NOT DEFEAT THE SAME (WHITNEY V. COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND REVENUE 1926 A C 37 , CIT V. MAHALIRAM RAMJIDAS (1940) 8 ITR 442, INDIAN UNITED MILLS LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF EXCESS PROFITS TAX, BOMBAY [1955] 27 ITR 20(SC), AND GURSAHAI SAIGAL V. CIT, PUNJAB [1963] 1 ITR 48( SC); COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, MEERUT V. SHARVAN KUMAR SWARUP & SONS , (1994) 6 SCC 623; CIT V. NATIONAL TAJ TRADERS, (1980) 1 SCC 370; ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANY LTD. V. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, KOTA AN D ORS., (48) STC 466). FRANCIS BENNION IN BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, 5TH ED., LEXIS NEXIS IN SUPPORT OF THE AFORESAID PROPOSITION PUT FORTH AS AN ILLUSTRATION THAT SINCE CHARGE MADE BY THE LEGISLATOR IN PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS IS EXCEPTED TO BE FOR THE GENERAL BENEFIT OF LITIGANTS AND OTHERS, IT IS PRESUMED THAT IT APPLIES TO PENDING AS WELL AS FUTURE PROCEEDINGS. 38. HAVING SAID THAT, LET US REVERT TO DISCUSSION OF SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT. THE S AID PROVISION IS A MACHINERY PROVISION AND INSERTED IN THE STATUTE BOOK FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING OUT ASSESSMENTS OF A PERSON OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSON UNDER SECTIONS 132 OR 132 A OF THE ACT . UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT, IF AN OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT THERE EXISTS ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME WHICH MAY BELONG TO A OTHER PERSON OTHER THAN THE SEAR CHED PERSON UNDER SECTIONS 132 OR 132 A OF THE ACT , AFTER RECORDING SUCH SATISFACTION, MAY TRANSMIT THE RECORDS/DOCUMENTS/CHITS/PAPERS ETC TO THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON. AFTER RECEIPT OF THE AFORESAID SATISFACTION AND UPON EXAMINATION OF THE SAID OTHER DOCUMENTS RELATING TO SUCH OTHER PERSON, THE JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER MAY PROCEED TO ISSUE A NOTICE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT, THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF XIV - B SHALL APPLY. 39. THE OPENING WORDS OF SECTION 1 58BD OF THE ACT ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST BE SATISFIED THAT UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO ANY OTHER PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON WITH RESPECT TO WHOM A SEARCH WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 132 OF T HE ACT OR A REQUISITION OF BOOKS WERE MADE UNDER SECTION 132A OF THE ACT AND IT (SS) A NOS . 23 - 27 /PAN/2015 & ITA NO. 41 3 /PAN/201 5 CO NOS.91 - 95/PAN/201 6 28 THEREAFTER, TRANSMIT THE RECORDS FOR ASSESSMENT OF SUCH OTHER PERSON. THEREFORE, THE SHORT QUESTION THAT FALLS FOR OUR CONSIDE RATION AND DECISION IS AT WHAT STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS SHOULD THE SATISFACTION NOTE BE PREPARED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER: WHETHER AT THE TIME OF INITIATING PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 158BC FOR THE COMPLE TION OF THE ASSESSMENTS OF THE SEARCHED PERSON UNDER SECTION 132 AND 132A OF THE ACT OR DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT OR AFTER COMPLETION OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT. 40. THE TRIBUNAL AND THE HIGH COURT ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IT COULD ONLY BE PREPARED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT AND NOT AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE SAID PROCEEDINGS. THE COURTS BELOW HAVE RELIED UPON THE LIMITATION PERIOD PROVIDED IN SECTION 158BE(2)(B) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 158BD , I.E., TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE NOTICE UNDER CHAPTER XIV - B WAS SERVED ON SUCH OTHER PERSON IN RESPECT OF SEARCH INITIATED OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ANY ASSETS ARE REQUISITIONED ON OR AFTER 01.01.1997. WE WOULD EXAMINE WHETHER THE TRIBUNAL OR THE HIGH COURT ARE JUSTIFIED IN COMING TO THE AFORESAID CONCLUSION. 41. WE WOULD CERTAINLY SAY THAT BEFORE INITIATING PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OF FICER WHO HAS INITIATED PROCEEDINGS FOR COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT SHOULD BE SATISFIED THAT THERE IS AN UNDISCLOSED INCOME WHICH HAS BEEN TRACED OUT WHEN A PERSON WAS SE ARCHED UNDER SECTION 132 OR THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE REQUISITIONED UNDER SECTION 132A OF THE ACT. THIS IS IN CONTRAST TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WHERE RECORDING OF REASONS IN WRITING ARE A SINE QUA NON. UNDER SECTION 158BD THE EXISTENCE OF COGENT AND DEMONSTRATIVE MATERIAL IS GERM ANE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICERS SATISFACTION IN CONCLUDING THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS BELONG TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSON IS NECESSARY FOR INITIATION OF ACTION UNDER SECTION 158BD . THE BARE R EADING OF THE PROVISION INDICATES THAT THE SATISFACTION NOTE COULD BE PREPARED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER EITHER AT THE TIME OF INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT OF A SEARCHED PERSON UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT OR DURING THE STAGE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT AFTER COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT PREPARE THE SATISFACTION NOTE TO THE EFFECT THAT THERE EXISTS INCOME TAX BELONGING TO ANY P ERSON OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSON IN RESPECT OF WHOM A SEARCH WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 132 OR REQUISITION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE MADE UNDER SECTION 132A OF THE ACT. THE LANGUAGE OF THE PROVISION IS CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS. THE LEGISLATURE HAS NOT IMPOSED ANY EMBARGO ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THE STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS DURING WHICH THE SATISFACTION IS TO BE REACHED AND RECORDED IN RESPECT OF THE PERSON OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSON. 42. FURTHER, SECTION 158BE(2)(B) ONLY PROVIDES FOR THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR COMPLETION OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION IT (SS) A NOS . 23 - 27 /PAN/2015 & ITA NO. 41 3 /PAN/201 5 CO NOS.91 - 95/PAN/201 6 29 158BD IN CASE OF THE PERSON OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSON AS TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE NOTICE UNDER THIS CHAPTER WAS SERVED ON SUCH OTHER PERSON IN RESPECT OF SEARCH CARRIED ON AFTER 01.01.1997. THE SAID SECTION D OES NEITHER PROVIDES FOR NOR IMPOSES ANY RESTRICTIONS OR CONDITIONS ON THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR PREPARATION THE SATISFACTION NOTE UNDER SECTION 158BD AND CONSEQUENT ISSUANCE OF NOTICE TO THE OTHER PE RSON. 43. IN THE LEAD CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD PREPARED A SATISFACTION NOTE ON 15.07.2005 THOUGH THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF A SEARCHED PERSON, NAMELY, S.K. BHATIA WERE COMPLETED ON 30.03.2005. AS WE HAVE ALREADY NOTICED, THE TRIBUNAL AND THE HIGH COURT ARE OF THE OPINION THAT SINCE THE SATISFACTION NOTE WAS PREPARED AFTER THE PROCEEDINGS WERE COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BD READ WITH SECTION 158BE(2)(B) AND THEREFORE, HAVE DISMISSED THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE REASONI NG OF THE LEARNED JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT IS CONTRARY TO THE PLAIN AND SIMPLE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED BY THE LEGISLATURE UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT WHICH CLEARLY PROVIDES ADEQUATE FLEXIBILITY TO THE ASSES SING OFFICER FOR RECORDING THE SATISFACTION NOTE AFTER THE COMPLETION OF PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF THE SEARCHED PERSON UNDER SECTION 158BC . FURTHER, THE INTERPRETATION PLACED BY THE COURTS BELOW BY READI NG INTO THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF SECTION 158BE(2)(B) SUCH AS TO EXTEND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION TO RECORDING OF SATISFACTION NOTE WOULD RUN COUNTER TO THE AVOWED OBJECT OF INTRODUCTION OF CHAPTER TO PROVIDE FOR COST - EFFECTIVE, EFFICIENT AND EXPEDITIOUS COMPLETION OF SEARCH ASSESSMENTS AND AVOIDING OR REDUCING LONG DRAWN PROCEEDINGS. 44. IN THE RESULT, WE HOLD THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 158BD OF THE A CT A SATISFACTION NOTE IS SINE QUA NON AND MUST BE PREPARED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE HE TRANSMITS THE RECORDS TO THE OTHER ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAS JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON. THE SATISFACTION NOTE COULD BE PREPARED AT EITHER OF THE FOLLOW ING STAGES: (A) AT THE TIME OF OR ALONG WITH THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE SEARCHED PERSON UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT; (B) ALONG WITH THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT; AND (C) IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. 29 . ON CAREFUL PERUSA L OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AS WELL AS THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, IT IS CLEAR THAT W HERE THE OFFICER UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, AFTER THE ASSESSMENT OF THE PERSON IN RESPECT WHOM SEARCH ACTION WAS CARRIED OU T IS COMPLETED, FINDS THAT THE SEIZED ARTICLES BELONG TO SOME OTHER PERSON IT (SS) A NOS . 23 - 27 /PAN/2015 & ITA NO. 41 3 /PAN/201 5 CO NOS.91 - 95/PAN/201 6 30 HAS TO FORWARD A SATISFACTION NOTE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION TO ASSESS SUCH PERSON. THE SATISFACTION IN SUCH A CASE IS IN RESPECT OF THE MATERIAL AND DISCLOSURES OF THE PERSON WITH WHOM THE ARTICLES OR ASSETS ARE FOUND AND NOT IN RESPECT OF THE PERSON TO WHOM THEY BELONG. IN THIS REGARD RELIANCE CAN BE PLACED IN THE CASE OF SAVESH KUMAR AG ARWAL V. UNION OF INDIA, (2013) 353 ITR 26 (ALL). THE PROCEDURE TO BE ADOPTE D FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153A AGAINST A PERSON WHO HAS NOT BEEN SEARCHED, HAS BEEN PRESCRIBED IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C WHEREIN A SITUATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING THE JURISDICTION OVER THE OTHER PERSON IS DIFFERENT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON IN RESPECT OF WHOM THE SEARCH HAS BEEN CONDUCTED. BEFORE NOTICE CAN BE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 153C, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO BE SATISFIED THAT UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOUND DURING SEARCH OPERATIONS BELONG S TO THE THIRD PERSON. A CLEAR AND PLAIN READING OF SECTION 153C LEAVES NO DOUBT THAT RECORDING OF SATISFACTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE PERSON SEARCHED IS MANDATORY AND IT HAS TO PRECEDE THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE OTHER PERSON (NOT S EARCHED) . 30. NOW, IF WE LOOK INTO THE SATISFACTION NOTE IN THE FILE OF THE SEARCHED PERSON NAMELY, MODEL CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO RECORDING OF SATISFACTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE DOCUMENT SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH AT THE PREMISES OF MODEL CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE AND WERE INCRIMINATING IN NATURE. IN OUR VIEW, UNLESS THERE IS A RECOVERY OF THE DOCUMENT BELONGING TO THE OTHER IT (SS) A NOS . 23 - 27 /PAN/2015 & ITA NO. 41 3 /PAN/201 5 CO NOS.91 - 95/PAN/201 6 31 PERSON, SECTION 153C OF THE ACT CANNOT TRIGGER. IT IS SINE QUA NON THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON SHOULD RECORD THE SATISFACTION IN HIS FILE AND THE SATISFACTION SHOULD NOT ONLY RECORDS THAT THE DOCUMENT SEIZED BELONGS TO THE OTHER PERSON BUT HE IS ALSO REQUIRED TO MENTION THAT TH E D OCU MENT SO RECOV ERED ARE INCRIMINATING IN NATURE. IN THE PRESENT CASE THERE IS NEITHER THE RECORDING OF SATISFACTION BY THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON THAT THE DOCUMENTS BELONG TO THE OTHER PERSON NOR THERE IS ANY FINDING THAT THE DOCUMENTS SO FOUND WERE INCRIMINATING IN N ATURE. IN OUR VIEW A DETAILED SCHEME HAS BEEN PROVIDED FOR INITIATION OF SECTION 153C I.E. FIRST THERE WOULD BE A SATISFACTION IN THE FILE OF THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AND THEREAFTER TRANSMISSION OF THE FILE ALONG WITH THE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT TO THE AO OF THE OTHER PERSON AND THEREAFTER RECORDING OF SATISFACTION BY THE AO OF THE OTHER PERSON AND ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S.153C OF THE ACT AND COMPLETION OF PROCEEDINGS. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL AND FOUNDATIONAL FACT OF RECORDING SATISFACTION BY TH E AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON NO PROCEEDING U/S.153C OF THE ACT CAN BE INITIATED BY THE OTHER PERSON. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE IS NO SATISFACTION IN THE FILE OF AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ISSUANCE OF PROCEEDINGS U/S.153C OF THE ACT WERE WITHOUT OF ANY BASIS. 31. ASSUMING THE PROCEEDING CAN BE INITIATED WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY SATISFACTION IN THE FILE OF THE AO WHETHER THE SATISFACTION ON RECORD IN THE FILE OF THE ASSESSEE REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE CAN BE SAID TO BE SATISFACTION IN THE EYES OF LAW. IT (SS) A NOS . 23 - 27 /PAN/2015 & ITA NO. 41 3 /PAN/201 5 CO NOS.91 - 95/PAN/201 6 32 32. IN OUR VIEW, IT IS FUNDAMENTAL THAT IN THE SATISFACTION NOTE, IT IS NOT ONLY ESSENTIAL TO MENTION THE PAN NO. OF THE ASSESSEE, HIS ADDRESS AND OTHER DETAILS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND INVARIABLY THE SATISFACTION NOTE SHOULD NOT BE FORMING PA RT OF THE ORDER SHEET AND IT SHOULD BE SEPARATELY RECORDED AS IS SATISFACTION NOTE SHOWING THE APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. ADMITTEDLY, THE APPLICATION OF MIND IS CONSPICUOUSLY MISSING IN THE ORDER SHEET (SATISFAC TION) AS NEITHER THE DESCRIPTION OF THE DOCUMENT WERE MENTIONED NOR HOW THOSE DOCUMENT LEADS TO EVASION OR CONCEALMENT OF NON - DISCLOSURE OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THESE YEARS. 33. IN OUR VIEW, THE ASSESSING OFFICER BESIDES RECORDING THE ABOVESAID I S ALSO REQUIRED TO MENTION THE DOCUMENT RECEIVED BY HIM PERTAINS TO WHICH ASSESSMENT YEAR AND HOW IT IS INCRIMINATING. 34. AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE, ON OUR DIRECTION, THE LD. DR HAD PRODUCED THE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSEE NAMELY PET ER VAZ, WE HAVE REQUESTED THE PARTIES TO FILE INDEX OF DOCUMENTS ALONG WITH THE DATES SO THAT IT CAN BE IDENTIFIED WHETHER ANY DOCUMENT PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS WERE RECOVERED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE OR NOT. THE LIS T OF THE DOCUMENTS PROVIDES AS UNDER : - SUMMARY OF SEIZED MATERIALS IN THE CASE OF EDGAR BRAZ AFONSO AS PER PAPER - BOOK SUBMITED BY LD DR. PAPER BK. SR.NO. DOCUMENT PERTAINS TO NATURE OF DOCUMENT AMOUNT DATE IT (SS) A NOS . 23 - 27 /PAN/2015 & ITA NO. 41 3 /PAN/201 5 CO NOS.91 - 95/PAN/201 6 33 13 VANDA AFONSO 6 - YEAR NS C CERTIFICATE 5000 3/29/2010 14 VANDA AFONSO 6 - YEAR NSC CERTIFICATE 5000 3/29/2010 15 VANDA AFONSO 6 - YEAR NSC CERTIFICATE 5000 3/29/2010 16 VANDA AFONSO 6 - YEAR NSC CERTIFICATE 5000 3/29/2010 17 VANDA AFONSO 6 - YEAR NSC CERTIFICATE 5000 3/29/20 10 18 VANDA AFONSO 6 - YEAR NSC CERTIFICATE 5000 3/29/2010 19 VANDA AFONSO 6 - YEAR NSC CERTIFICATE 5000 3/29/2010 20 VANDA AFONSO 6 - YEAR NSC CERTIFICATE 5000 3/29/2010 21 VANDA AFONSO 6 - YEAR NSC CERTIFICATE 5000 3/29/2010 22 VANDA AFONSO 6 - YEAR N SC CERTIFICATE 5000 3/29/2010 23 VANDA AFONSO 6 - YEAR NSC CERTIFICATE 5000 3/29/2010 24 VANDA AFONSO 6 - YEAR NSC CERTIFICATE 5000 3/29/2010 25 VANDA AFONSO 6 - YEAR NSC CERTIFICATE 1000 3/29/2010 26 VANDA AFONSO 6 - YEAR NSC CERTIFICATE 1000 3/29/2 010 27 VANDA AFONSO 6 - YEAR NSC CERTIFICATE 1000 3/29/2010 28 VANDA AFONSO 6 - YEAR NSC CERTIFICATE 1000 3/29/2010 29 MARIA W. DIAS CORP BANK - TDR - FRONT PAGE 111863 12/22/2005 30 MARIA W. DIAS CORP BANK - TDR - BACK PAGE NA 6/14/2013 31 CARL A MARIA HILDA AFONSO CORP BANK - TDR - FRONT PAGE 46463 10/19/2005 32 CARLA MARIA HILDA AFONSO CORP BANK - TDR - BACK PAGE NA 6/14/2013 33 CARLA MARIA HILDA AFONSO CORP BANK - TDR - FRONT PAGE 46463 10/19/2005 34 CARLA MARIA HILDA AFONSO CORP BANK - TDR - BACK PAGE NA 6/14/2013 35 MARIA VANDA DIAS CANARA BANK - KDR 74952 7/19/2011 36 CARLA MARIA HILDA AFONSO BANK OF INDIA FDR 66461 7/6/2010 37 SHIARA MARIE ANGELA AFONSO BANK OF INDIA FDR 66461 7/6/2010 38 MARIA VANDA LUDOVINA DIAS BANK OF I NDIA FDR 60000 12/31/2008 39 VANDA AFONSO HDFC BANK FDR 95000 11/14/2008 40 VANDA AFONSO HDFC BANK FDR 95000 6/16/2007 41 MARIA VANDA AFONSO ICICI BANK FDR 35000 6/16/2007 42 MARIA VANDA AFONSO ICICI BANK FDR 35000 1/25/2012 43 MARIA LOURDES ROCHA M ELBA AFONSO DENA BANK FDR 88000 2/25/2011 44 SHIARA MARIA ANGELA AFONSO HDFC BANK FDR 57000 12/31/2011 45 VANDA AFONSO HDFC BANK FDR 59782.52 7/31/2011 46 RUTH AFONSO HDFC BANK - TERM DEPOSIT 213527 12/31/2011 47 RUTH AFONSO HDFC - SAVING ACCOUNT BAL ANCE 18594.34 12/31/2011 48 RUTH AFONSO HDFC - FD 213527.21 12/31/2011 35. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE SAID TABLE, IT IS CLEAR THAT NONE OF THE DOCUMENT BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US, AND, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE RELEVANT OR INCRIMI NATING IN NATURE. IT (SS) A NOS . 23 - 27 /PAN/2015 & ITA NO. 41 3 /PAN/201 5 CO NOS.91 - 95/PAN/201 6 34 36. WE MAY ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT AS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CITDR THAT NONE OF THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT AND WERE ONLY MADE U/S.2(22)(E) OF THE ACT AS IS CLEAR, FROM THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RA ISED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE ITAT , WHICH WERE NOT PERTAINING TO THE SEIZED DOCUMENT. 37. IN TERMS OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, WE HEREBY DECIDE THE VERIFICATION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL PARAMETER FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S.153C OF THE ACT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. 38 . IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE I.E. IT(SS)A NOS. 23 TO 27 /PAN/2015 & ITA NO.413/PAN/2015 ARE DISMISSED, WHEREAS THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I.E. CO NOS. 91 TO 95 /PA N/ 2016 ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07 / 10 / 2021. SD/ - SD/ - ( ) (DR. M ITHA LAL MEENA ) ( ) (LALIET KUMAR) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER /PANAJI ; DATED 07 /10 /2021 PRAKASH KUMAR MISHRA, SR.P.S. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, ( SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ) , /ITAT, PANAJI 1. / THE APPELLANT - 2. / THE RESPONDENT - 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, PANJAJI 6. / GUARD F ILE. //TRUE COPY//