Smt. Jayshree Jayesh Chevli, Surat V. The ACIT.,Circle-2, Surat

ITSSA 49/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7575 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-03-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 31-08-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S JHA
• Assessee Lawyers: H V GANDHI
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Search and seizure; Period of limitation; Block assessment; Time period of passing order
• Section: 69; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT, JM AND SHRI T. R. MEENA, AM) IT(SS)A NO. 49/AHD/2009 B. P.:01-04-90 TO 27-04-2000 SMT. JAYSHREE JAYESH CHEVLI, 58/59,SANSKARNAGAR SOCIETY, B/H. HOMEOPATHIC HOSPITAL, UDHNA MAGDALLLA ROAD, SURAT PA NO. AAZPC 8015 A VS THE A. C. I. T. CIRCLE-2, SURAT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A NO. 50/AHD/2009 B. P.:01-04-90 TO 27-04-2000 SMT. JAGRUTI DIVYESH SHERDIWALA, 2/280, MOTO MOHALLO, RUSTAMPURA, SURAT PA NO. ACXPS 5499 L VS THE A. C. I. T. CIRCLE-2, SURAT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI H. V. GANDHI, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI S. S. JHA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 13-03-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13-04-2012 O R D E R PER TEJ RAM MEENA: THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE DIFFERENT ASSESSEES ARE DIRECTED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)- II, SURAT IN APPEAL NO. CAS/II/47/08-09 AND CAS/II/ 46/08-09, BOTH DATED 10-06-2009, FOR THE ABOVE BLOCK PERIOD. SINC E THE ISSUES AND IT (SS) A NO.49/AHD/2009: SMT. JAYSHRE E JAYESH CHEVLI VS ACIT, CIR-2, SURAT IT (SS) A NO.50/AHD/2009: SMT. JAGRUT I DIVYESH SHERDIWALA VS ACIT, CIR-2, SURAT 2 FACTS ARE COMMON IN BOTH THE APPEALS, WE DISPOSE OF F THE SAME BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE . 2. IN BOTH THE APPEALS THE ASSESSEES HAVE TAKEN THE FOLLOWING COMMON GROUNDS: 1. THE HONBLE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER U /S. 158BD OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961 THOUGH THE SAME WAS IL LEGAL, BAD IN LAW AND AB INITIO AS THE NOTICE U/S. 158 BD WAS ISSUED LONG AFTER COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 158BC IN THE CASE OF SHRI SHASHIKANT VENILAL TAMAKUWALA FROM WHICH THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 158BD IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT HAD EMANATED. 2. THE HONBLE CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING AS UNDER:- HOWEVER IN ORDER TO MEET THE ENDS OF NATURAL JUSTI CE THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCERNED WAS REQUESTED TO PROVID E COPIES OF SUCH DOCUMENTS TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS ASSESSING OFFICER DID VIDE HER LETTER DATED 16-03-2 009, A COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN ENDORSED TO THE UNDERSIGNED AND KEPT ON RECORD. 3. THE HONBLE CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISTINGUISHING THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE AND TH AT OF THE HONBLE ITAT SPL. BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF ADIL PERVEZ RENDERIA. 4. THE HONBLE CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,08,100/- WHICH WAS MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLO SED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE APPELLANT HAD MADE INVESTMENT IN PLOT BY WAY OF ON MONEY. IN FACT THE APPELLANT HAD PURCHASED ONLY ONE PLOT IT (SS) A NO.49/AHD/2009: SMT. JAYSHRE E JAYESH CHEVLI VS ACIT, CIR-2, SURAT IT (SS) A NO.50/AHD/2009: SMT. JAGRUT I DIVYESH SHERDIWALA VS ACIT, CIR-2, SURAT 3 (AND NOT TWO PLOTS AS ALLEGED) NAMELY D-24/1 FOR RS.40,569/-. 5. THE HONBLE CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THE ISSUES LIKE CROSS EXAMINATION, AFFIDAVIT, LOOSE PAPER FOUND DURING SEARCH WHETHE R EVIDENCE ?, THIRD PARTY INFORMATION ENTRIES IN DAIR Y WITHOUT CORROBORATING EVIDENCE, PURCHASER DENYING THE PAYME NT ETC. 3. FIRST, WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT(SS) A NO.49/AHD/2009 IN THE CASE OF SMT. JAYSHREE JAYESH CHEVLI. 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH U/S 13 2 OF THE INCOME IT ACT WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF SHASHIKANT V. T AMAKUWALA OF 90 WILSON TOWER, ATHWALINES, SURAT ON 27-4-2000. THE A CIT, CC-4, SURAT IN HIS SATISFACTION NOTE REPORTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OF SHRI SASHIKANT V. TAMAKUWALA, ONE DELUXE DIARY N O.BS-2 WAS SEIZED WHICH CONTAINED NOTING REGARDING PURCHASE OF PLOT IN SACHIN UDHYOGNAGAR SAHKARI MANDALI LTD., SACHIN BY VARIOUS PERSONS, OUT OF WHICH ONE OF THEM WAS THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COUR SE OF SEARCH SHRI SHASHIKANT V. TAMAKUWALA ADMITTED ON OATH THAT SALE TRANSACTIONS WERE MADE THROUGH HIM ASSERTING THAT T HE NOTING OF THE SEIZED DIARY CONTAINED DETAILS OF TOTAL PURCHASE PR ICE WHICH INCLUDED PAYMENT OF ON-MONEY BY THE PURCHASERS. IN THE SEI ZED DOCUMENTS, TRANSACTIONS REGARDING PURCHASE OF TWO PLOTS OF D T YPE ADMEASURING 756 SQ. YDS. WERE NOTED AT RS.4,93,188/- OUT OF WHI CH RS.77,662/- IS SHOWN AS DOCUMENT PRICE PAID TO THE SOCIETY WHEREAS THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.4,16,916/- WAS INDICATED AS ON-MONEY P AID IN CASH. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS AT CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT T HE ASSESSEE CLARIFIED THAT SHE HAD PURCHASED ONLY ONE PLOT I.E. D-24/1 FOR IT (SS) A NO.49/AHD/2009: SMT. JAYSHRE E JAYESH CHEVLI VS ACIT, CIR-2, SURAT IT (SS) A NO.50/AHD/2009: SMT. JAGRUT I DIVYESH SHERDIWALA VS ACIT, CIR-2, SURAT 4 RS.40,569/- AND ANOTHER PLOT D-24/15 WAS PURCHASED BY SMT. JAGRUTI SHERDIWALA FOR RS.40,569/-. AS REGARDS PAYMENT OF O N-MONEY, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMMENT. ASSESSEE WAS, THEREFORE, ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE ON-MONEY PAID IN CASH AMOUNTING TO RS.2,08,098/- SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE ACT AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE IN THE RELEVANT BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD. SUBSEQUENTLY, A NOTICE U/S 158 BD READ WITH SECTION 158BC OF THE IT ACT WA S ISSUED ON 29-03-2006 AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 17.04.20 06 REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE BLOCK RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF SERVICE OF NOTICE. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE VIDE L ETTER DATED 26.4.2006 STATED THAT INCOME WAS ALREADY DISCLOSED IN THE RETURNS FILED AND HENCE DID NOT FILE ANY FRESH RETURN. THE AO ACCORDINGLY MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.2,08,098/-. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE C ARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHO IN T URN CONSIDERING THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF T HE ASSESSEE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A ). 6. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD DISCLOSED THE TRANSACTION IN QUESTION IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND INVESTMENT IN PLOT HAS BEEN REFLECTED IN HER BALANC E SHEET AND THUS THE HAD NOTHING TO ADD FURTHER IN THE MATTER. IT WA S FURTHER PLEADED THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED ON 29-03-2006 IS DEFECTIVE I N ITS FORM CONTENTS AND ON THE GROUND OF LIMITATION AND THEREFORE, ANY ASSESSMENT FRAMED IT (SS) A NO.49/AHD/2009: SMT. JAYSHRE E JAYESH CHEVLI VS ACIT, CIR-2, SURAT IT (SS) A NO.50/AHD/2009: SMT. JAGRUT I DIVYESH SHERDIWALA VS ACIT, CIR-2, SURAT 5 ON THE BASIS OF SUCH NOTICE IS VAGUE, ILLEGAL AND W ITHOUT ANY JURISDICTION AND VOID AS AB INITIO. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, THE LEARNED AR REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF ITAT DELHI S PECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF MANOJ AGRAWAL VS DCIT, 113 ITD 377 AND THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MANISH MAH ESHWARI VS ACIT, 289 ITR 341 WHERE IN THE SAME ISSUES HAVE BE EN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED AR FURTHER SUBM ITTED THAT SAME VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH IN THE FOLLOWING CASES: (I) SHRI NARESHBHAI V TAMAKUWALA (HUF) VS ACIT, CIR -2, SURAT IT(SS) NO.32/AHD/2009 DATED 07-08-2009 (II) SHRI ADIL PARVEZ RANDERIA VS ACIT, CC-3(1) I T(SS)A NO.25/AHD/2007 DATED 01-09-2008 (III) SHRI KUINTESH BHUPATRAI DEAI VS ACIT, CIR-3(1 ), SURAT ITA NO.209/AHD/2006 DATED 26-03-2009 AND (IV) SHRI TARUNKUMAR N. JUNEJA VS ACIT, CIR-2, SURA T IT(SS) NO.36/AHD/2009 DATED 28-08-2009. REGARDING ISSUE OF SATISFACTION NOTE OF THE AO PRIO R TO NOTICE SERVED U/S 158BD OF THE ACT, THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT NO COPY OF THE SAME WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THUS, PRA YED BY THE ADDITION OF RS.2,08,100/- MAY BE DELETED. 6.1 THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT IN MOST OF THE CASES, PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BD OF THE IT ACT CAN ONLY BE TAK EN AFTER 158 BC IT (SS) A NO.49/AHD/2009: SMT. JAYSHRE E JAYESH CHEVLI VS ACIT, CIR-2, SURAT IT (SS) A NO.50/AHD/2009: SMT. JAGRUT I DIVYESH SHERDIWALA VS ACIT, CIR-2, SURAT 6 PROCEEDINGS ARE COMPLETED AS THE RECORDS ARE TO BE HANDED OVER TO THE CONCERNED AO. HE ALSO FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT N OTICE U/S 158 BD READ WITH SECTION 158BC OF THE IT ACT HAS BEEN HELD TO BE INVALID WHEREIN IT WAS ISSUED BEFORE THE RECORD WAS RECEIVE D AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT LOGICALLY LIMITATION PERIOD PRESCRIB ED IN THE CONTEXT OF 158BC CANNOT BE APPLIED TO STARTING OF SUBSEQUENT P ROCEEDINGS WHICH IN THIS CASE ARE 158BD PROCEEDINGS AND THAT T HERE IS LOGICALLY AND LEGALLY BOUND TO BE A GAP BETWEEN TWO EVENTS, A ND THEREFORE, NOTICE ISSUED ON 29-03-2006 U/S 158BD OF THE IT ACT CANNOT BE TREATED AS BARRED BY LIMITATION. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIALS AVAI LABLE ON RECORD. THE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF ITAT DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF MANOJ AGARWAL (SUPRA), ON THE IDENTICAL FACTS HAS DECIDED THE SAME ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE E IN THE CASE OF SHRI NARESHBHAI V. TAMAKUWALA (HUF) DATED 08-08-200 9.THE FINDINGS OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 6 OF THE O RDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HA VE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN OUR C ONSIDERED VIEW, THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE BY THE DECISION OF I.T.A.T. DELHI SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF MANOJ AGARWAL (SUPRA). IN THE LIGHT OF DECISION OF I.T.A.T. SPECIAL BENCH SUPRA, THE NO TICE S 158BD OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED OR BEFORE 30.4.2002. THER EFORE, NOTICE U/S 158BD ISSUED ON 29.3.2006 TO THE ASSESSE E IS TIME BARRED AND THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED ON THE BASIS OF SU CH DEFECTIVE NOTICE IS BAD, ILLEGAL, WITHOUT JURISDICT ION AND VOID AB IT (SS) A NO.49/AHD/2009: SMT. JAYSHRE E JAYESH CHEVLI VS ACIT, CIR-2, SURAT IT (SS) A NO.50/AHD/2009: SMT. JAGRUT I DIVYESH SHERDIWALA VS ACIT, CIR-2, SURAT 7 INITIO.. IN THE CASE OF MANOJ AGARWAL (SUPRA), I.T. A.T. SPECIAL BENCH HELD THAT THE TIME LIMIT SET OUT IN SEC. 158B E AUTOMATICALLY APPLIES FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS O F SEC.158BD OF THE ACT. RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF I.T.A.T. DELHI SPECIAL BENCH (SUPRA) ARE AS UNDER: '116. A VIEW IS EXPRESSED THAT WHEREVER A TIME-LIMI T IS INTENDED, THE PARLIAMENT HAS PROVIDED FOR THE SA ME AND IN THE ABSENCE OF A SPECIFIC PROVISION MADE IN THIS RESPECT IT HAS TO BE ASSUMED THAT THERE IS NO TIME-LIMIT IN TENDED IN LAW. IT HAS TO BE REMEMBERED THAT THE MATTER RELATE S TO FIXING HUGE FINANCIAL AND OTHER CIVIL LIABILITY ON THE PERSON AFFECTED AND IT HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY HELD THAT THERE MUST BE A FINALITY TO ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THE ACT AND T HAT A CONCLUDED PROCEEDING CANNOT BE REOPENED AT THE WHIM AND FANCY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW. STRICT INTERPRETATION OF FISCAL, ST ATUTES IS THE ORDER OF THE DAY AND AS THE PROVISIONS FOR SEAR CH ARE DRACONIAN IN NATURES SUCH PROVISIONS HAVE NECESSARI LY TO BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED. IT WILL HAVE TO BE REMEMBERE D THAT SECTION 158BD PROVIDES FOR INVOKING JURISDICTION UN DER THE SAID SECTION ENABLING THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSI NG THE OTHER PERSON IN RESPECT OF WHOM THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ASSESSING THE PERSON SEARCHED GIVES A 'FINDING THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME UNEARTHED AS A RESULT OF SEARCH BELONGS TO THE SAID PERSON AND ONCE SUCH A FINDING IS GIVEN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BD COME INTO OPERATION. THIS, THEREFORE, INVOLVES ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION AND CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS A 'PROCEDUR AL MATTER. IN THE ABSENCE OF A FINDING IN THIS BEHALF, THERE IS NO JURISDICTION TO THE OTHER ASSESSING OFFICER AT A LL TO PROCEED FURTHER IN THE MATTER. AS THE TIME-LIMIT SE T IN SECTION 158BE APPLIES TO SUCH FINDING, IT IS ONLY L OGICAL THAT THE SAID TIME LIMIT AUTOMATICALLY APPLIES FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BD AND IT IS FOR THIS REASON THAT THE PARLIAMENT DID NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO SP ECIFY* A SEPARATE TIME-LIMIT FOR THE SAME AS THE ENACTMENT I TSELF SHOWS BOTH SECTIONS 158BC AND 158BD ARE INTER-LINKE D, IT (SS) A NO.49/AHD/2009: SMT. JAYSHRE E JAYESH CHEVLI VS ACIT, CIR-2, SURAT IT (SS) A NO.50/AHD/2009: SMT. JAGRUT I DIVYESH SHERDIWALA VS ACIT, CIR-2, SURAT 8 INTERLACED AND INTERTWINED AND BOTH FORM PART AND P ARCEL OF THE SAME CHAPTER. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT TIME LIMIT SET IN SEC. 158BE AUTOMATICALLY APPLIES FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS O F SEC. 158BD OF THE ACT. THE SPECIAL BENCH OF I.T.A.T. HAS CATEG ORICALLY HELD THAT FOR THIS REASON, THE LEGISLATURE DID NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO SPECIFY THE SEPARATE TIME LIMIT FOR THE, AS THE ENA CTMENT ITSELF SHOWS THAT BOTH SECTIONS 158BC AND 158BD ARE INTERL INKED, INTERLACED AND BOTH FORM PART AND PARCEL OF THE SAM E CHAPTER. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF I.T.A.T. SPE CIAL BENCH (SUPRA), WE HOLD THAT THE NOTICE DATED 29.3.2006 IS SUED U/S 158BD READ WITH SEC. 158BC OF THE ACT IS TIME BARRE D AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED ON 20.4.2008 U/S 1 58BD OF THE ACT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND VOID AB INITIO. ACCORDINGLY, WE QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.4.2008 FRAMED U /S 158BD OF THE ACT. SINCE, WE HAVE QUASHED THE ASSESS MENT ORDER, WE DO NOT THINK IT NECESSARY TO DECIDE THE G ROUND RAISED ON MERITS. 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AND BY FOLLOWIN G THE REASONS FOR THE AFORESAID DECISIONS, WE HEREBY QUASH THE AS SESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.03.2008 AND DO NOT THINK IT NECESSARY TO A DJUDICATE THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON MERIT. ACC ORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT( SS)A NO.49/AHD/2009 IS ALLOWED. 10. IN THE CASE OF THE OTHER ASSESSEE I.E. SMT. JAG RUTI DIVYESH SHERDIWALA IN IT(SS)A NO.50/AHD/2009, IN ADDITION TO THE COMMON GROUNDS AS TAKEN IN THE APPEAL IN IT(SS)A NO.49/AHD /2009 MENTIONED ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO TAKEN AN ADD ITIONAL GROUND SUBMITTING INTER ALIA THAT THE ASSESSMENT PASSED IN THE CASE OF THE IT (SS) A NO.49/AHD/2009: SMT. JAYSHRE E JAYESH CHEVLI VS ACIT, CIR-2, SURAT IT (SS) A NO.50/AHD/2009: SMT. JAGRUT I DIVYESH SHERDIWALA VS ACIT, CIR-2, SURAT 9 ASSESSEE U/S 158BD READ WITH SECTION 158BC OF THE I T ACT IS REQUIRED TO BE HELD AS AB INITIO VOID AS THE NOTICE U/S 158BD HAD BEEN ISSUED LONG AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 158BC IN THE CASE OF SHRI SHASHIKANT VENILAL TAMAKUWALA FROM WHI CH THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 158BD OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF TH E ASSESSEE HAD EMANATED. THIS GROUND BEING A VALID LEGAL GROUND AN D BEING INTERLINKED WITH GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE, WE ADMIT THE SAME FOR ADJUDICATION. 11. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, BOTH THE PARTIES SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE SIMILAR AND IDENTICAL WITH THOSE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT(SS)A NO.49/AHD/2009 AND FURTHER PLEADED THAT THE DECISION TAKEN IN THAT CASE MAY BE FOLLOWED IN THIS CASE ALSO. ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS, WE FIND THAT THE FACTS ARE EXACTLY IDE NTICAL IN BOTH THE CASES. SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 WAS CARRIED OU T ON 27 TH APRIL, 2000 IN CASE OF SHRI SHASHIKANT VENILAL TAMAKUWALA OF 19 WI LSON TOWER ATHWALINES, SURAT. AFTER RECEIVING SATISFACTION NOT E FROM THE A. O. TAMAKUWALA, THE A. O. OF THE ASSESSEE ISSUED NOTICE U/S 158BD ON 29 TH MARCH, 2006 WHICH WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 17. 04.2006. AS PER SECTION 158BE THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 148BC IS TO BE CO MPLETED WITHIN TWO YEAR FROM END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE LAST OF THE AUTHORIZATION FOR SEARCH IT (SS) A NO.49/AHD/2009: SMT. JAYSHRE E JAYESH CHEVLI VS ACIT, CIR-2, SURAT IT (SS) A NO.50/AHD/2009: SMT. JAGRUT I DIVYESH SHERDIWALA VS ACIT, CIR-2, SURAT 10 WAS EXECUTED. WE, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING OUR REASONS FOR DECISION IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT(SS) A NO.49/AHD/2009 A BOVE, ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE OTHER ASSESSEE IN IT(SS)A NO.50/AHD/2009. 12. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ABOVE ASSESS EES ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13-04-2012 SD/- SD/- (MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER (T. R. MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER D Y. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD