Jaydeep Enterprises, Ahmedabad V. The ACIT., Cent,Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad

ITSSA 37/AHD/2005

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8609 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 11 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-01-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 02-01-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 18-02-2005
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D S KALYAN

Judgement Text

, , , , B, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, B BENCH . .. . . .. . , , , , !' !' !' !' ! !! !. .. . . .. .#$ #$ #$ #$, , , , % % % % & & & & BEFORE SHRI D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A. NO.37/AHD/2005 [BLOCK PERIOD ENDING 21 ST DECEBER, 1999] JAYDEEP ENTERPRISES PROP. DILIP V. PATEL 303, LOHA BHAVAN NR. OLD HIGH COURT AHMEDABAD. ' /VS. ACIT, CENT.CIR.1(4) AHMEDABAD. ( (( ()* )* )* )* / APPELLANT) ( (( (+)* +)* +)* +)* / RESPONDENT) ' ,- . / / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SANJAY R. SHAH 1 . / / REVENUE BY : SHRI D.S. KALYAN, CIT-DR 2'3 . -%/ DATE OF HEARING : 2 ND JANUARY, 2013 4#5 . -%/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24-01-2013 6 / O R D E R PER A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, AHMEDABAD DATED 24.11.2004 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD ENDING ON 21 ST DECEMBER, 1999. 2. IN ADDITION TO VARIOUS GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APP EAL MEMO, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO RAISED FOUR ADDITIONAL GROUNDS, W HICH WERE ADMITTED BY THE TRIBUNAL AS PER THE NOTING IN ORDER SHEET DATED 1.2.2012. OUT OF THESE FOUR ADDITIONAL GROUNDS, WE FEEL THAT ADDITIONAL GR OUND NO.3 SHOULD BE DECIDED FIRST. THIS GROUND READS AS UNDER: IT(SS)A. NO.37/AHD/2005 -2- 3. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED AO IS BAD IN LA W AS THERE WAS NO REQUISITE SATISFACTION RECORDED IN ORDER TO ASSUME JURISDICTION U/S.158BD OF THE ACT. 3. IN THIS REGARD, A QUERY WAS RAISED BY THE BENCH AS TO WHETHER ANY FINDING IS GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ASPE CT REGARDING SATISFACTION RECORDED BY THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON, AND IN R EPLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO SUCH FIND ING WAS GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). WE ALSO FIND THAT NO SUCH SPECIFIC GROUND WAS RAISED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), ALTHOUGH THIS GROUND WAS RAISED BEFORE HIM THAT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS BAD IN LAW AND SHOULD BE QUASHED. UNDER THIS FACTUAL POSITION, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR DECIDING THIS ISSUE AS TO WHETHER REQUISITE SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED BY THE AO OF TH E SEARCHED PERSON IN ORDER TO ASSUME JURISDICTION BY THE AO OF THE ASSES SEE UNDER SECTION 158BD, AND IF IT IS FOUND THAT NO SUCH REQUISITE SA TISFACTION WAS RECORDED BY THE AO OF SEARCHED PERSON, THEN NO PROCEEDING CAN B E INITIATED IN THE PRESENT CASE UNDER SECTION 158BD, AND HENCE ORDER P ASSED BY THE AO DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. BUT IF IT IS FOUND THAT RE QUISITE SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED BY THE AO OF SEARCHED PERSON, THEN VARIOUS OTHER GROUNDS ON MERIT AND TECHNICAL GROUND ALSO REQUIRE DECISION. WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE ENTIRE MATTER BA CK TO HIS FILE FOR FRESH DECISION. HE SHOULD FIRST DECIDE THE TECHNICAL ASP ECT AS TO WHETHER REQUISITE SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED BY THE AO OF SEARCHED PER SON OR NOT IN ORDER TO DECIDE AS TO WHETHER THE AO HAS PROPERLY ASSUMED JU RISDICTIONAL UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT OR NOT. IF IT IS FOUND T HAT THE AO HAS NOT ASSUMED PROPER JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT, THEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DESERVES TO BE QUASHED, AND IN CAS E, IT IS FOUND THAT PROPER SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED AND ASSUMPTION OF JURISDI CTIONAL UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT BY THE AO IS PROPER, THEN VARIOUS OTHER ISSUES INCLUDING TECHNICAL AND ISSUES ON MERITS SHOULD BE DECIDED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IT(SS)A. NO.37/AHD/2005 -3- AFRESH. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE LEARNED CIT(A) SHOULD PASS A SPEAKING ORDER AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING T O BOTH THE SIDES. THIS ADDITIONAL GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR ST ATISTICAL PURPOSE. 4. IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONAL GROUND NO.3, OTHER ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS AND ORIGINAL GROUNDS AS PER THE MEMO OF APPEAL DO NOT CALL FOR A NY ADJUDICATION AT THIS STAGE, BECAUSE AFTER DECIDING THE TECHNICAL ASPECT, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS TO DECIDE THE ENTIRE ISSUES AGAIN. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE IN TERMS AS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. SD/- SD/- ( . .. . . .. . /D.K.TYAGI) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ! !! !. .. . . .. .#$ #$ #$ #$ /A.K. GARODIA) % % % % /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER C OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1) : APPELLANT 2) : RESPONDENT 3) : CIT(A) 4) : CIT CONCERNED 5) : DR, ITAT. BY ORDER DR/AR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD