M/s. Shiv Associates, Nadiad V. The Dy.CIT.,Cent.Circle-2, Baroda

ITSSA 27/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1070 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 03-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R I PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: P M MEHTA WITH G M THAKOR
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Validity of assessment; Procedural lapse
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 234B; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH (BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER) IT(SS)A NO: 27/AHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) M/S. SHIV ASSOCIATES 7, ISCON COMPLEX,NR. MAHA GUJART HOSPITAL, COLLEGE ROAD, NADIAD-387001 V/S DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BARODA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: ABGFS4486B APPELLANT BY : SHRI P.M MEHTA WITH G.M. THAKOR, AR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.I. PATEL, CIT/ D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 20-10-20 15 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 -10-2015 PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE OR DER OF CIT(A)-IV, AHMEDABAD DATED 25.11.2011 FOR A.Y. 2008-09. IT(SS)A NO 2 7/AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008-0 9 2 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER. 3. ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM STATED TO BE ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS. A SEARCH ACTION U/S. 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED I N THE CASE OF SHRI RAMESHBHAI BABULAL SHAH AND GROUP OF CASES ON 03.04 .2008 AND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH A LENOVO MAKE LAPTOP WAS FOUND A ND SEIZED IN WHICH RAMESHBHAI SHAH HAD MAINTAINED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN RESPECT OF 65 ENTITIES INCLUDING THAT OF ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, PROCEEDING S U/S. 153C WERE INITIATED AND NOTICE U/S. 153C R.W.S. 153A(A) WERE ISSUED AND IN RESPONSE TO WHICH ASSESSEE ELECTRONICALLY FILED ITS RETURN OF I NCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 6,93,780/- AFTER CLAIMING BROUGHT FOR WARD LOSSES OF EARLIER YEARS. THEREAFTER ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S. 153C R .W.S. 153A VIDE ORDER DATED 30.12.2010 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINE D AT RS. 26,73,280/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O., ASSESSEE CARRIED TH E MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 25.11.2011 DISMISSED TH E APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF LD. C IT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GR OUNDS:- 1. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE AP PELLANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN REJECTING GROUNDS NO. 1 AND 2 OF THE APPELLANT'S APPEAL BEFORE HIM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R PASSED U/S. 153C READ WITH SECTION 153A AND 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED, INTER ALIA,: (A) THE APPELLANT'S ELABORATE SUBMISSIONS BEFORE HIM, IN THE RIGHT PERSPECTIVE; (B) THAT, AS HE HAD HIMSELF RECALLED IN THE IMPU GNED APPELLATE ORDER, THE SEARCH WARRANT U/S. 132 HAD BEEN ISSUED IN THE JOINT NAMES OF SHRI RAMESHBHAI B. SHAH AND HIS SON SHRI AMIT R. SHAH AND THAT, THEREF ORE, THE SEARCH IN PURSUANCE OF SECTION 132 COULD NOT PERMIT VALID ASS ESSMENTS IN THEIR IT(SS)A NO 2 7/AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008-0 9 3 INDIVIDUAL CASES, FAR LESS, IN CASES OF ALL THOSE ENTITIES IN WHICH THEY WERE INVOLVED IN THEIR CAPACITIES OTHER THAN THEIR JOINT CAPACITY AND, THE REFORE, IT WAS ONLY AXIOMATIC THAT IT COULD NOT BE MADE THE BASIS FOR MAKING A VALID ASSESSMENT OF THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 153A READ WITH SECTION 153C. 3.1WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FOREGOING, IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ER RED IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSMENT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.35,29,500 IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. HE OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED, INTER ALIA,: (A) THAT THE APPELLANT WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINES S OF DEVELOPING AND BUILDING OF A PROJECT AT NADIAD IN GUJARAT; (B) THE APPELLANT HAD OFFERED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT UNDISCLOSED INCOME PERTAINING THERETO VIZ. RS. 15,50,000, IN A. Y. 2008-09; (C) THAT ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THAT THE APPELLANT 'S PROJECT WAS AT THE NADIAD TOWN WHICH COULD NOT BE COMPARED WITH SU CH PROJECTS IN THE BIGGER CITIES IN GUJARAT SUCH AS AHMEDABAD, BARODA, RAJKOT OR SURAT, THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OFFE RED, AS THUS RETURNED BY THE APPELLANT WAS REASONABLE AND DESERVED TO BE ACCEPTED; THAT, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO ARRIVE AT AN AD HOC AM OUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME BY APPLYING 25% AS THE RATE OF N ET PROFIT ON UNDISCLOSED TURNOVER RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ITAT IN VIJAY PROTEINS LTD. V. ACIT (58 ITD 428) EVEN THOUGH IT RELATED TO AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT BUSINESS OF CRUSHING OILSEEDS WHICH WAS NOT AT ALL COMPARABLE WITH THE APPEIFANT'S BUSINESS; THAT FURTHER, AND PERTINENTLY, THE RATE OF 25% IN THAT CASE WAS NOT ADOPTED AS NET PROFIT RATE TO BE APPLIED TO TURNOVER OUTSIDE THE BOOKS BUT FOR MAKING A DISALLOWANCE OUT OF WHAT HAD BEEN PROVED TO BE BOGUS PURCHASES OF OIL CAKES FROM 33 PARTIES; 3.2 IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE APPELLANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S AC TION OF ESTIMATING A LARGER AMOUNT OF IT(SS)A NO 2 7/AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008-0 9 4 UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.35,29,500 THAN RS. 15,50,0 00 DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT ESPECIALLY WHEN AT PARA 5.9 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER, HE HAD HIMSELF APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT A MAJOR PORTION OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME DISC LOSED BY SHRIRAMESHBHAI B. SHAH IN HIS SETTLEMENT PETITION HAD COME FROM THE INCOME GE NERATED BY THE OPERATIONS OF VARIOUS PARTNERSHIP FIRMS INCLUDING THE PRESENT APPELLANT, IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED): '5.9 MOREOVER, IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT SHRIRAMESHBHAI B. SHAH HAS GONE BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION OFFERING AN ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.2,30,91,000/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 TO 2009-10. THE PETITION OF THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. ONE OF MAJOR PORTION OF DISCLOSURE RELATES TO AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM PARTNERSHIP FIRMS OUT OF PROFIT FROM OPERATIONS. THUS, SHRIRAMESHBHAI B. SHAH HAS OFFERED INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE IN UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS OF THE FIRMS. ' 3.3 THE APPELLANT THEREFORE, PRAYS THAT THIS HON'BLE TR IBUNAL MAY BE PLEASED TO ORDER.THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER'S ESTIMATE OF TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.35,29,500 AS AGAINST THE TOTAL UNDISCL OSED INCOME OF RS. 15,50,000 OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT; 4 IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE A PPELLANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN DISMISSING GROUND NO. 7 OF THE APP ELLANT'S APPEAL CHALLENGING LEVY OF INTEREST U/S. 234A, 234B AND 234C ON THE GROUND THA T IT WAS MANDATORY AND CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE. HE OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED, INTER ALIA, T HAT THE APPELLANT HAD CHALLENGED THE VERY LEVY OF INTEREST AND THAT EVEN AS THE LEVY UNDER TH OSE PROVISIONS MAY BE MANDATORY, IT WAS NOT UNIVERSAL AND IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT' S CASE, THE LEVY DESERVED TO BE CANCELLED. 5 IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT 'S CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN DISMISSING GROUND NO. 8 OF THE APPELLANT'S APPEAL CHALLENGING INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) ON THE GROUND TH AT MERE INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WAS NOT APPEALABLE. HE OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED, I NTER ALIA, THAT IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE, THERE BEING ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANT/JUSTIFICATION FOR IT(SS)A NO 2 7/AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008-0 9 5 INITIATING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, HE OUGHT TO HAV E ORDERED FOR THEIR BEING DROPPED, THEREBY SAVING BOTH THE APPELLANT AND THE DEPARTMENT FROM L ONG DRAWN AVOIDABLE LITIGATION. 6 BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET LD. A.R SUBMITTED THAT TH OUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS BUT THE ONLY ISSUE IS WITH RESPECT TO CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 153C OF THE ACT AND TH EREFORE ONLY GROUND NO. 1 NEEDS TO BE ADJUDICATED. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONB LE ITAT IN THE CASE OF ITS GROUP WHERE THE ISSUE WAS IDENTICAL AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE SAME SEARCH AND THEREFORE THE ISSUE NEEDS TO BE DECIDED IN ITS FAVO UR. 7 BEFORE US, LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE BASIC CONDI TION FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 153C WAS NOT SATISFIED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THE NOTICE ISSUED WAS INVALID AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED TO BE QUASHED. HE SUBMITTED THAT NO SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED BY THE A.O OF THE PERSONS SEARCHED AND THE SO CALLED SATISFACTION IS TOTALLY VAGUE AND HAS NOT SP ECIFIED AS TO WHETHER ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE WAS SEIZED FROM SHRI RAME SHBHAI SHAH. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICE U/S. 153A R.W.S. 153C DAT ED 29.08.2008 IS IDENTICALLY WORDED AS THAT OF GROUP CASES WHICH HAS ALREADY BEE N DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR AND IN THE GROUP CASES THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT SINCE THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 153C WAS INVALID, THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FRAMED U/S. 153C R.W.S. 153A WERE ALSO QUASH ED. HE PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN THE GROUP CASE S PASSED IN IT(SS)A NO. 68/A/2012 & ORS. ORDER DATED 11.09.2015. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT RELYING ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF PARSHWA CORPORATION & O RS. (SUPRA), THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH LATER ON IN THE CASE OF RATNARAJ SAREES PVT. LTD. IN IT(SS)A NO. IT(SS)A NO 2 7/AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008-0 9 6 18/A/2012 ORDER DATED 15.10.2015 HAD QUASHED THE AS SESSMENT ORDER. HE ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF THE AFORESAID DECISION . HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 153C R.W.S. 153A DATED 29.08.2008 IS VERBATIM COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED IN THE CASE OF GROUP CASES AN D SINCE THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE GROUP CASES, THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER PASSED U/S. 153C DATED 30.12.2010 BE QUASHED. LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND S UPPORTED THE ORDER OF A.O AND LD. CIT(A). 8 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. BEFORE US, LD. A.R. INTERALIA SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICE IS SUED U/S. 153C WAS INVALID AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED U/S. 153C R.W .S. 153A ALSO NEEDS TO BE QUASHED IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN GROUP CASES. WE FIND THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RATNARAJ SAREES PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) WHERE SIMILAR ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED AR ISING OUT OF THE SAME SEARCH ACTION AND IN THAT CASE, AFTER RELYING ON TH E DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF PARSHWA CORPORATION & ORS. (SU PRA), THE TRIBUNAL DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 7.WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL SATISFACTION NOTE RECORDED IN THE CASE OF OTHER ASSESSEES WAS CONSIDERED BY THE ITAT ALONG WITH IT(SS)A.NO.68/AHD /2012 AND OTHERS. THE TRIBUNAL HAS REPRODUCED THE SATISFACTION NOTE. THE FINDING OF TH E TRIBUNAL ON THIS ISSUE READS AS UNDER: 'NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153 R.W.S. 153A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATE : 29.08.2008 PAN : AACFP 3995 R AY 2003-04 TO M/S. PARSHWA CORPORATION JALDHARA APARTMENT IT(SS)A NO 2 7/AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008-0 9 7 OPP. MAHA GUJARAT HOSPITAL, COLLEGE ROAD, NADIAD A SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT WA S CONDUCTED/REQUISITION MADE U/S 132A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT IN THE GROUP CASES OF RAMESHB HAI BABUBHAI SHAH & OTHER GROUP OF CASES ON 03.04.2008. I AM SATISFIED THAT THE MONEY/ BULLION/JEWELLERY/OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLES OR THINGS/BOOKS OF ACCOUNT/DOCUMENTS SEIZE D BELONG(S) TO YOU. THEREFORE, YOUR INCOME OF SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDIN G THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE AFORESAID SEARCH WAS CON DUCTED WAS MADE I.E., FROM A.YS. 2003-04 TO 2008-09 IS REQUIRED TO BE ASSESSED/RE-AS SESSED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A R.W.S. 153C OF THE ACT. YOU ARE, THEREFORE, REQUIRED TO FURNISH HOUR RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE INC OME-TAX ACT, 1961 FOR A.Y. 2003-04 BEING ONE OUT OF THE ABOVE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IN RESPECT OF WHICH YOU ARE ASSESSABLE UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE RETURN SHOULD B E FILED IN THE APPROPRIATE FORM AS PRESCRIBED IN RULE 12 OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962 . IT SHOULD BE DULY VERIFIED AND SIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 140 OF THE SAID ACT AND DELIVERED AT MY OFFICE AS MENTIONED ABOVE WITHIN FORTY FIVE DAYS FR OM THE SERVICE OF THIS NOTICE. SD/- (ILA PARMAR) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BARODA 18. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR NO SATISFACTION IS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF PERSON SEARCHED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF ASSESSEE DID NOT RECORD ANY SATISFACTION PRIOR TO ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 153C. THE SO-CALLED SATISFAC TION RECORDED IN THE NOTICE U/S 153C IS TOTALLY VAGUE. IT HAS NOT SPECIFIED WHICH VALUABLE ARTICLES/THINGS/BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS/DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND FROM SHRI RAMESHBHAI B, SHAH WHICH BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS MENTIONED THAT IN THE LAPTOP OF SHRI RAMESHBHAI B. SHAH THE DATA PERTAINING TO T HE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND AND ON THAT BASIS NOTICES U/S 153C HAVE BEEN ISSUED. HOWEVER, I N THE NOTICE U/S 153C, WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECORDED THE SATISFACTION FOR ISSUE OF THE NOTICE, THERE IS NO MENTION ABOUT SUCH LAPTOP OR THE ALLEGE D DATA IN SUCH LAPTOP WHICH IS CLAIMED IT(SS)A NO 2 7/AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008-0 9 8 TO BE BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, W E HAVE NO HESITATION TO HOLD THAT THE BASIC CONDITION FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 153C HAS NO T BEEN SATISFIED. 19. THE ID. CIT-DR HAS CLAIMED THAT ANY PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY IN THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 153C IS A CURABLE DEFECT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 292B OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THIS CONTENTION OF THE ID. DEP ARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. SECTION 292B READS AS UNDER:- '292B. NO RETURN OF INCOME, ASSESSMENT, NOTICE, SUM MONS OR OTHER PROCEEDING, FURNISHED OR MADE OR ISSUED OR TAKEN OR PURPORTED T O HAVE BEEN FURNISHED OR MADE OR ISSUED OR TAKEN IN PURSUANCE OF ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL BE INVALID OR SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE INVALID MERELY BY REASON OF ANY MISTAKE, DEFECT OR OMISSION IN SUCH RETURN OF INCOME, ASSESSMENT, N OTICE, SUMMONS OR OTHER PROCEEDING IF SUCH RETURN OF INCOME, ASSESSMENT, NO TICE, SUMMONS OR OTHER PROCEEDING IS IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT IN CONFORMITY WITH OR ACCORDING TO THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THIS ACT.' 20. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT AS PER SECTI ON 292B, ANY NOTICE, SUMMONS OR OTHER PROCEEDING WOULD NOT BE INVALID MERELY BY REASON OF ANY MISTAKE, DEFECT OR OMISSION IN SUCH RETURN OF INCOME, ASSESSMENT, NOTICE, SUMMONS OR OTHER PROCEEDING PROVIDED SUCH RETURN OF INCOME, ASSESSMENT, NOTICE, SUMMONS OR OT HER PROCEEDING IS IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT IN CONFORMITY WITH OR ACCORDING TO THE INTEN T AND PURPOSE OF THIS ACT. HOWEVER, BEFORE ISSUING OF NOTICE U/S 153C, THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE PERSON SEARCHED IS ESSENTIAL FOR ASSUMING THE JURISDICTION U/S 153C BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF SUCH OTHER PERSON. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF SAT ISFACTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE PERSON SEARCHED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE P RESENT ASSESSES DOES NOT GET ANY JURISDICTION TO ISSUE SUCH NOTICE. ACCORDINGLY, NOT ICE U/S 153C ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE PERSON SEARCHED LACKS JURISDICTION W HICH IS NOT CURABLE BY VIRTUE OF PROVISION OF SECTION 292B. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE RES PECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF MANISH MAHESHWARI (SUPRA) AND DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LALITKUMAR M. PATEL (SUPRA), HOLD THAT THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S 153C WERE INVALID-ACCORDINGLY THE SAME A RE QUASHED. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FRAMED U/S 153C R.W.S. 153A ARE A LSO QUASHED. SINCE THE ASSESSMENT IT(SS)A NO 2 7/AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008-0 9 9 ORDER ITSELF HAS BEEN QUASHED, THE OTHER GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL WHICH IS WITH REGARD TO DETERMINATION OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION.' 8. WE FIND THAT THE SATISFACTION NOTE IN OTHER CASE S AS WELL AS RECORDED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ARE VERBATIM SAME EXCEPT THE ASSESSMENT YE ARS. A PERUSAL OF THE SATISFACTION NOTE WOULD INDICATE THAT IT IS TOTALLY VAGUE. IT DO ES NOT DISCLOSE WHAT IS THE MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, WHICH BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO ANY SUCH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH CITED SUPRA, WE ALLOW APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND QUASH ASSESSMENT ORDER. 9. SINCE, WE QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THEREFOR E, THERE IS NO NEED TO ADJUDICATE OTHER ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. 9 BEFORE US, LD. D.R. COULD NOT POINT ANY DISTINGUISH ING FEATURE OF THE CASE AND THAT OF RATNARAJ SAREES P. LTD. (SUPRA) AND IN THE CASE OF PARSHWA CORPORATION (SUPRA). WE THEREFORE FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING AS CONSIDERED BY THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH IN THE AFORESAID DECISIONS AND RESPE CTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID ORDERS OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH, HOLD THE NOT ICE ISSUED U/S. 153C TO BE INVALID AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAME D U/S. 153C R.W.S.153A IS QUASHED. THUS THE GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 10 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 30- 10 - 2015. SD/- SD/- (S.S. GODARA) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: TRUE COPY RAJESH