Shri Hemant Kumar Aggarwal, Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITSSA 35/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0978 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 17-08-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 05-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K SAROHA
• Assessee Lawyers: SSH GAUTAM JAIN
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Period of limitation; Accommodation entries; Block assessment
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT (SS) A NO . 35 /DEL/201 2 BLOCK PERIOD : 01.04.1990 TO 03.08.2000 HEMANT KUMAR AGGARWA L , VS. ACIT, CIRCLE - 29(1), 2073, KATRA TOBACCO, NEW DELHI KHARI BAOLI, DELHI (PAN: ADPPK6024L ) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : S/SH GAUTAM JAIN, FCA & PIYUSH KUMAR KAMAL, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SH. A.K. SAROHA, CIT - DR DATE OF HEARING: 19.08.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 09.09.2015 ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, A.M. : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - XXV, NEW DELHI, DATED 30 TH APRIL, 2012 PASSED FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.1990 TO 03.08.2000. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1 THAT THE LEARN ED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) - XXV, NEW DELHI HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDI NG THE DETERMINATION OF TOTAL UNDISCLOSED IN COME OF THE APPELLANT AT RS. 1,4 8,989/ - AS AGAINST N IL UNDISCLOSED INCOME DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT. 2 THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDI NG THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 158D OF THE ACT BY FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT STATUTORY PRECONDITIONS FOR INITIATING ACTION U/S 158BD OF THE ACT WERE NOT SATISFIED AND AS SUCH, INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS WAS ILLEGAL, INVALID AND UNSUSTAINABLE. 2 2.1 T HAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE PURPORTED SATISFACTION NOTE WAS NOT RECORDED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AND HENCE, THE SAME COULD NOT PROVIDE ANY BASIS TO ASSUME JURISDICTI ON U/S 158BD OF THE ACT. 2.2 THAT FURTHERMORE SUCH PURPORTED SATISFACTION NOTE HAD BEEN RECORDED AFTER EXPIRY OF STATUTORY PERIOD FOR FRAMING OF ASSESSMENT ON THE SEARCHED PERSON AND HENCE, COULD NOT BE REGARDED A BASIS TO CONFER JURISDICTION, AS HAS BEE N HELD BY SPECIAL BENCH OF HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S BISHAN CHAND MUKESH KUMAR REPORTED IN 113 ITD 377 (DEL) (SB). 2.3 THAT EVEN OTHERWISE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE FOU ND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH ON THE SEARCHED PERSON AND, NONE HAS BEEN SPECIFIED IN THE PURPORTED SATISFACTION NOTE AND THUS, NOTICE U/S 158BD IS ERRONEOUS, CONTRARY TO LAW AND, UNSUSTAINABLE. 2.4 THAT ADVERSE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) TO SUPPORT THE ILLEGAL ACTION ARE FACTUALLY INCORRECT, LEGALLY MISCONCEIVED AND, OTHERWISE IRRELEVANT AND THEREFORE, UNSUSTAINABLE. 3 THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OTHERWISE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT, ASSESSM ENT FRAMED BY THE LEARNED ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 29(L), NEW DELHI DATED 25.4.2006 WAS OTHERWISE WITHOUT JURISDICTION SINCE THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSEE LAY WITH INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, ROHTAK AND THEREFORE, ORDER OF ASSESSMENT BE QUASHED AS SUCH. 4 THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,46,069/ - REPRESENTING SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT AND, HELD TO BE ACCOMMODATION ENTRY TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT. 4.1 THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OFLNCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE EVIDENCE TENDERED BY THE APPELLANT TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF LOSS ON SALE OF SHARES AND HENCE, FINDINGS RECORDED IN DISREGARD OF EVIDENCE AND BASE D ON IRRELEVANT AND EXTRANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS ARE MISCONCEIVED AND, MISPLACED. 4.2 THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS PROCEEDED TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION ON SURMISES, CONJECTURES AND SUSPICION AND THEREFORE, THE MADE AND SUSTAINED IS NOT WARRANTED. 4 .3 THAT ADDITION CONFIRMED IS IN DISREGARD OF DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE MANOJ AGGARWAL VS. DCIT REPORTED IN 11 3 ITD 377 (DEL)(SB) AND THUS, IS OTHERWISE CONTRARY TO PRINCIPLE OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE AND HENCE, UNSUSTAINABLE. 5 THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ALSO ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING AN ADDITION OF RS. 2,920 / - REPRESENTING ALLEGED COMMISSION PAID BY THE APPELLANT FOR OBTAINING AN ALLEGED ACCOMMODATION ENTRY. 3 6 THAT THE LEARNE D COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ALSO ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 158BF A OF THE ACT. IT IS THUS PRAYED THAT, ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED AND, ADDITION MADE AND SUSTAINED TOGETHER WITH IN TEREST LEVIED MAY KINDLY BE DELETED AND, APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT BE ALLOWED. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT CONSEQUENT UPON SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT ) IN THE CASE OF SH. MANOJ AGGARWAL, DIRECTOR OF M/S FRIENDS PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD. , T HE APPELLANT WAS ISSUED NOTIC E UNDER SECTION 158BD R.W.S. 158 BC OF THE ACT ON 15 TH APRIL, 2004. IN RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE, THE APPELLANT FILED THE NIL RETURN OF INCOME ON 28 TH MAY, 2004 , DECLARING NIL UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE WHOLE FOUNDATION FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 150BD WAS THE STATEMENT OF SH. MANOJ AGGARWAL WHO IS THE DIRECTORS OF M/S FRIENDS PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD. THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PROVIDED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES OF SALE OF SHARES THROUGH M/S FRIENDS PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD. THE MODUS OPRANDI OF MANOJ AGGARWAL WAS THAT TO ISSUE CHEQUES AGAINST CASH RECEIVED FROM THE PERSONS WHO ARE THE BENEFICIARIES OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CARRIED OUT THE TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE OF 1600 SHARES OF M/S VIRAJ CREDIT CAPITAL THROUGH M/S FRIENDS PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD. ON 15.12.1999 FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1,51,492/ - AND SOLD THE SAME THROUGH M/S FRIENDS PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD. ON 14 TH MARCH, 2000 FOR A SUM OF RS. 5423/ - . THUS, THE ASESSEE MADE A PAYMENT OF RS. 1,46,699/ - TO M/S FRIENDS PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD. VIDE CHEQUE NO. 630138 , DATED 03.04.2000 DRAWN ON TAMIL NADU MERCANTILE BANK LTD., CHANDNI CHOWK, 4 DELHI - 6. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD OPINED THAT A SUM OF RS. 1,46,069/ - PAID TO M/S FRIENDS PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD. TOWARDS ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IS TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENTS AND BROUGHT TO TAX AND A COMMISSIONER OF RS. 2,920/ - BELIEVED TO HAVE BEEN PAID TO M/S FRIENDS PORTF OLIO PVT. LTD. WAS BROUGHT TO TAX AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 25 TH APRIL, 2006. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER, AN APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 30.04.2012 DISMISSED THE SAME VIDE PARA 6.5 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH READ AS UNDER: 6.5 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ORDER OF THE AO, REMAND REPORT OF THE AO AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND I DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BD/158BC. IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO WAS IN POSSESSING OF SPECIFIC INFORMATION REGARDING THE BOGUS ENTRIES TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND HAS RECORDED THE REASONS IN DETAIL AND A COPY OF THE SATISFACTION NOTE DATED 15.04.2004 OF THE AO IS ENCLOSED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE - A A ND THE AO WAS SATISFIED REGARDING THE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND ACCORDINGLY , HAS ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 158BD/158BC. THE AO HAD ALSO ISSUED A LETTER DATED 17.01.2006 TO THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE REASONS FOR INITIATION OF BLOCK PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BD/158BC AND A COPY OF THE LETTER IS ENCLOSED AND MARKET AS ANNEXURE - B. THE AO HAS ALSO SUBMITTED REMAND REPORTS DATED 30.04.2007 AND 06.12.2007 (VIDE ANNEXURE C& D) IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN EMPHASIZED THAT THE AO HAS MADE SATISFACTION NOTE FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BD AND THE AO HAS VALIDLY ASSUMED THE JURISDICTION U/S 158BD/158BC. THE CASE LAWS RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE IS ON VARIOUS ISSUES AND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE OF THOSE CASES ARE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE AO HAS FOLLOWED THE PROPER PROCEDURE AS PER LAW AND THE CASE LAWS RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ORDER, THE APPELLANT IS BEFORE US WITH THE PRESENT APPEAL. 5 3. IT WAS ARGUED BEFORE US ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE VERY INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 158BD IS BAD IN LAW FOR THE REASON THAT NO SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON I.E. MANOJ KUMAR AGGAR WAL, DIRECTOR OF M/S FRIENDS PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD . IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 158BD ARE BARRED BY LIMITATION, INASMUCH AS, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED I N THE CASE OF SEARCHED PERSON ON 29 TH A UGUST, 2002 ITSELF. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 5. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WHEN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE TO BE INITIATED AGAINST THE PERSONS WHOSE PREMISES ARE SEARCHED, PROCE DURE FOR THAT IS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, IF DURING THE SEARCH CARRIED OUT AT THE PREMISES OF ONE PERSON, SOME DOCUMENTS/MATERIAL IS FOUND OR ASSET SEIZED ETC. ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT ANY UNDIS CLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO A THIRD PERSON I.E., A PERSON OTHER THAN ONE WHOSE PREMISES WERE SEARCHED UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT, THE PROCEDURE FOR CARRYING OUT BLOCK ASSESSMENT IN THAT EVENTUALITY IS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT. IT WAS FOR THIS REASON THAT IN THE CASE OF THESE ASSESSEES PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT WERE INVOKED. SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT READS AS UNDER : 'WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO ANY PERSON, OTHER THAN THE PERSON W ITH 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 TH E 6 ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON AND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROCEED AGAINST SUCH OTHER PERSON AND THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER SHALL APPLY ACCORDINGLY.' 5.1 IT CLEARLY EMERGES FROM THE READING OF THIS PROVISION THAT BEFORE INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE PERSON SEARCHED UNDER SECTION 132(1) MUST SATISFY HIMSELF THAT SOME UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSONS WITH RESPECT TO WHOM SEARCH WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 132(1) OF THE ACT. SUCH SATISFACTION MUST BE BASED ON THE MATERIAL FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH SATISFACTION (WHICH IS TO BE RECORDED IN WRITING) THE CONCERNED ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT GET ANY JURISDICTION TO AS SESS THAT OTHER PERSON BY INVOKING THE SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT. FURTHER, THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO BE IN RESPECT OF THE FOLLOWING ASPECTS: ( I ) THERE SHOULD BE 'UNDISCLOSED INCOME' WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 158( B ) REFERABLE TO THE ASSETS OR BOOKS/DOCUMENTS FOUND SEIZED/REQUISITIONED; ( II ) THERE SHOULD A FINDING BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THERE WAS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN SUCH ASSETS OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OF THE SEARCHED PERSON; ( III )AND THAT SUCH UNDISCLOSED INCOME B ELONGED TO THE PERSON OTHER THAN THE ONE SEARCHED. 5.2 IN THE PRESENT CASE, ADMITTEDLY, THE SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED IN THE PREMISES OF ONE MR. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL AND THE COMPANY I.E. M/S FRIENDS PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD. ADMITTEDLY, NO BOOKS OF A CCOUNT OR OTHER ASSETS PERTAINING TO THE APPELLANT WAS FOUND OR SEIZED. THE ENTIRE FOUNDATION OF THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 158BD IN THE PRESENT 7 CASE WAS THE STATEMENT OF M/S MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE ASSESSMENTS IN THE CASE OF MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL WAS COMPLETED ON 29 TH AUGUST, 2002 , AFTER COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENTS PROCEEDINGS OF M/S MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, NO SATISFACTION IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BD WAS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER OF MR. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH RECORDED SATISFACTION, THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MANISH MAHESHWARI VS. CIT, 289 ITR 341 , HELD AS UNDER: 'CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR INVOKING A BLOCK ASSESSMENT IS THAT A SEARCH HAS BEEN CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 132, OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS HAVE BEEN REQUISITIONED UNDER SECTION 132A. THE SAID PROVISION WOULD APPLY IN THE CASE OF ANY PERSON IN RESPECT OF WHOM SEARC H HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT UNDER SECTION 132A OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS HAVE BEEN REQUISITIONED UNDER SECTION 132A. SECTION 158BD, HOWEVER, PROVIDES FOR TAKING RECOURSE TO A BLOCK ASSESSMENT IN TERMS OF SECTION 158BC IN RESPECT OF ANY OTHER PERSON, THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENTS WHERE FOR ARE : (I) SATISFACTION MUST BE RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO ANY PERSON, OTHER THAN THE PERSON WITH RESPECT TO WHOM SEARCH WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT; (II) THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER D OCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED HAD BEEN HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON; AND (III) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PROCEEDED UNDER SECTION 158BC AGAINST SUCH OTHER PERSON. THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR INVOK ING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BD, THUS, ARE REQUIRED TO BE SATISFIED BEFORE THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHAPTER XIV - B ARE APPLIED IN RELATION TO ANY PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON WHOSE PREMISES HAD BEEN SEARCHED OR WHOSE DOCUMENTS AND OTHER ASSETS HAD BEEN REQ UISITIONED UNDER SECTION 132A OF THE ACT.' 6. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND FROM PAGE NO. 2 AS WELL AS 1 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THE SATISFACTION NOTE WAS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE 8 APPELLANT INSTEAD OF ASSESSING OFFICER OF SEARCHED PERSON. THERE FORE, IT HAS TO BE INFERRED THAT NO SATISFACTION NOTE WAS RECORDED, AS PER THE LAW LAID DOWN BY HON BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE CITED SUPRA. 7. FURTHER MORE, THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF SEARCHED PERSON I.E. MR. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, COMPLETED ON 29 TH AUGU ST, 2002 AND THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 158 BD IN THIS CASE WAS ISSUED ON 15 TH APRIL, 2004 THAT IS NEARLY AFTER LAPSE OF TWO YEARS AND TWO MONTHS. THE HON BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CALCUTTA KNITWEARS , 362 ITR 673 HELD THAT THE RECORDING OF SATISFA CTION ON THE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 158BD SHOULD BE DONE (A) AT THE TIME OR ALONG WITH THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE SEARCHED PERSON UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT, (B) ALONG WITH THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT, AND (C) IMMEDIATELY AFTER ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. 7. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT VIDE PARA 43 OF THE JUDGMENT THAT THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 158BC CANNOT BE EXTENDE D BY ISSUING THE BE LATED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 158BD . THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BHARAT B HUSHAN, 370 ITR 695, HELD THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE INTENT OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN PARA 44 OF THE CALCUTTA KNITWEARS, 362 ITR 673 (SC) , THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE AC T NEARLY AFTER ONE YEAR, CANNOT BE CONSIDERED CONTEMPORANEOUS TO THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF SEARCHED PERSONS. 9 THEREFORE, THE HON BLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE DELAY IN COMPLETION OF ASSE SSMENT UNDER SECTION 15 8 BD VITIATES THE VERY PROCEEDINGS ITSELF. APPLYING THE SAME RATIO IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN THE EYES OF LAW ON THIS SCORE ALONE . ACCORDINGLY, WE ALLOW THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT . 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. THE DECISION IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9 T H SEPTEMBER , 2015. S D / - S D / - ( DIVA SINGH ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 9 T H SEPTEMBER , 2015. RK/ - COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI