The ACIT, Circle-3, Surat V. Shri Babubhai C.Patel, Surat

ITSSA 508/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9232 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-07-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 17-07-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 25-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K C MATHEWS
• Assessee Lawyers: MEHUL R SHAH
• Keywords: Document seized; Question of law; Block assessment; Documents seized
• Section: 260A; 132; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I T (SS) A NO. 508 /AHD/ 20 1 0 BLOCK PERIOD: 1990-91 TO 1999-2000 AND UPTO 29.10.1999 ACIT, CIRCLE-3, SURAT VS SHRI BABUBHAI C PATEL F-303, PHANDAN PARK, CITYLIGHT, SURAT PAN NO. ABTPP8285G (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) BY APPELLANT SHRI K. C. MATHEWS, SR. D.R. /BY RESPONDENT SHRI MEHUL R. SHAH, A.R. /DATE OF HEARING 17.07.2013 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19.07.2013 O R D E R PER : SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ARISING FROM THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-II, SURAT, DATED 23.02.2010 AND THE GROUND R AISED IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- 1) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND IN LA W, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY T HE A.O. OF RS.5,72,770/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED ON-MONEY PA ID BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF FLAT AT CHANDAN PARK SOCIE TY FROM OHM ORGANIZERS AND OHM DEVELOPERS HOLDING THAT THERE WA S INORDINATE DELAY IN INITIATION OF ACTION U/S.158BD AND THEREBY THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S.158BD IS INVALID. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPONDING ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 158BC R.W.S. 158BD, DATED 28.0 1.2009 WERE THAT A IT(SS)A NO.508/AHD/2010 BLOCK PERIOD:1990-91 TO 1999-2000 AND UPTO 29.10.19 99 PAGE 2 SEARCH U/S.132 WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE BUSINESS PREM ISES OF M/S. OHM DEVELOPERS, SURAT ON 29.10.1999. THE A.O. HAVING T HE JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE OF M/S. OHM DEVELOPERS HAD FOUND THAT CERTAIN BUYERS HAVE INVESTED IN THE FLAT AND THE PAYMENT WAS ALLEGED TO BE MADE AS ON MONEY TO THE BUILDER, NAMELY, M/S. OHM DEVELOPERS. THERE IS A REFERENCE OF A PANCHNAMA THAT TOO WAS DATED 29.10.1999. IN CONSEQUENCE, A NOTICE U/S .158BD WAS ISSUED DATED 22.01.2007. IT WAS NOTED BY THE A.O. THAT TH E SAID NOTICE WAS SERVED ON THIS ASSESSEE ON 23.01.2007. ON THE BASIS OF THE I NFORMATION AND THE EVIDENCE, THE A.O. HAS FINALLY ARRIVED AT THE CONCL USION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE AN INVESTMENT OF RS.5,72,770/- AND FAILED TO S UBSTANTIATE THE ALLEGED INVESTMENT. RESULTANTLY, THE SAID AMOUNT WAS TAXED IN THE HAND OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APP ELLATE AUTHORITY, LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR AS UNDER :- 6.2 GIVEN SUCH FACTS AS DETAILED ABOVE, I AM OF THE VIE W THAT THERE HAS BEEN AN INORDINATE DELAY IN INITIATING AND COMP LETING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.158BC R.W.S. 158BD IN THE CASE OF T HE ASSESSEE. THOUGH, THE ACT DOES NOT LAY DOWN ANY TIME LIMIT FO R INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S.158BD YET, EQUITY DEMANDS THAT PROC EEDINGS SHOULD NOT BE KEPT PENDING INDEFINITELY AND THE SWO RD OF DAMOCLES BE KEPT HANGING OVER THE HEAD OF THE TAXPAYER FOR A N INDEFINITE PERIOD. EXPLANATION REGARDING THE INVESTMENT IN TH E SAID PROPERTIES WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. IF THE AUTHORITIES FAILED TO UTILIZE AND COMMUNICATE SUCH INFORMATION ON TIME, THEN THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE PENALISED AND KEPT IN THE LOOP OF THE AUTHORITIES FOR SUCH A LONG PERIOD OF 7(SEVEN) YEARS. REGRETTABLY, I MUST TAKE THE VIEW THAT THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE AO U/S.1 58BD WAS IT(SS)A NO.508/AHD/2010 BLOCK PERIOD:1990-91 TO 1999-2000 AND UPTO 29.10.19 99 PAGE 3 INORDINATELY DELAYED AND THEREFORE WAS INVALID. CO NSEQUENTLY, THE ADDITION OF THE SUM OF RS.5,72,770/- MADE BY THE AO WILL STAND DELETED. 4. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, LD. SR. D.R., SHRI K. C. MATHEWS HAS PLEADED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY TIME LIMIT PRESC RIBED IN THE STATUTE; LD. CIT(A) WAS WRONG IN HOLDING THAT DUE TO INORDINATE DELAY IN ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 158BD, THE SAME WAS INVALID. HE HAS ALSO PLEA DED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF PERSON SEA RCHED I.E. M/S. OHM DEVELOPERS, CERTAIN INQUIRIES WERE MADE AND THE NOT ICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BUT HE HAD FAILED TO APPEAR OR COMPLY WITH THOSE NOTICES. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAI D DELAY AND NOT THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT. LD. SR. D.R. HAS ALSO PLACED R ELIANCE ON CIT VS. V.S.K. ADICHETTY 254 CIT 633 (KERLA) FOR THE LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT THE INORDINATE DELAY CANNOT INVALIDATE A NOTICE U/S.158BD. AT THI S JUNCTURE ITSELF, IT IS NECESSARY TO MENTION THAT IN THIS CITED DECISION NO SUCH LEGAL PROPOSITION WAS LAID DOWN. FROM THE SIDE OF THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSE E, LD A.R. SHRI MEHUL R. SHAH HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CI T(A). 5. HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW ARE PERUSED. IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS RECORDED BY THE REVENUE A UTHORITIES, IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE, THAT A SEARCH ON M/S. OHM DEVELOPERS, SURA T, WAS CONDUCTED ON 29.10.1999. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT A PANCH NAMA HAD ALSO BEEN MADE ON THAT VERY DAY I.E. ON 29.10.1999 IN RESPECT OF T HE SEARCH MATERIAL. FACTS OF THE CASE HAVE ALSO REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSMENT OF M/S. OHM DEVELOPERS WAS COMPLETED ON 30.11.2001. HOWEVER, THE NOTICE U /S.158BD R.W.S. 158BC IT(SS)A NO.508/AHD/2010 BLOCK PERIOD:1990-91 TO 1999-2000 AND UPTO 29.10.19 99 PAGE 4 DATED 22.01.2007 WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 23.0 1.2007. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED IN THE CASE OF THE ASS ESSEE ON 28.01.2009. THEREFORE, IT IS APPARENT THAT AFTER COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT OF M/S. OHM DEVELOPERS IN THE YEAR 2001, A NOTICE U/S.158BD WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR 2007 I.E. ALMOST AFTER A LAPSE OF SIX Y EARS. ON THIS ISSUE, THERE IS A DECISION OF RESPECTED SPECIAL BENCH PRONOUNCED IN T HE CASE OF MANOJ AGGARWAL VS. DCIT (2008), 117 TTJ 145(SB) AND ON ANOTHER DECISION HAS ALSO CAME TO OUR NOTICE PRONOUNCED BY ITAT, LUCKNOW A BENCH IN THE CASE OF SAROJ NURSING HOME, 121 TTJ 125/116 ITD 311 (LUCKNO W). IN THESE DECISIONS, THE FINDING IS THAT THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 158BD HAD TO BE INITIATED WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING T HESE DECISIONS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY LD. C IT(A); THAT THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 158BD WERE INORDINATE LATE; HAS TO BE APPROVED . 5(I). AN ANOTHER PLANK OF ARGUMENT HAS ALSO BEEN RA ISED THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S.158BD WAS AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE AS SESSMENT OF THE PERSON SEARCHED; AS NOTED ABOVE. THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CAS E OF THE PERSON SEARCHED I.E. M/S. OHM DEVELOPERS WAS COMPLETED ON 30.11.2001. HOWEVER, THE IMPUGNED NOTICE U/S.158BD WAS ISSUED TO THE ASS ESSEE ON 22.01.2007. THUS, ADMITTEDLY THE NOTICE IN QUESTION WAS ISSUED AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT OF THE PERSON SEARCHED. ON THOSE VERY F ACTS, WHEN THE PERSON SEARCHED HAPPENED TO BE M/S. OHM DEVELOPERS, A VIE W HAS BEEN TAKEN BY ITAT D BENCH, AHMEDABAD IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SHRI JAGDISHKUMAR N. BRAHMBHATT BEARING IT(SS)A NO.137/AHD/2010 ( FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 1990-91 IT(SS)A NO.508/AHD/2010 BLOCK PERIOD:1990-91 TO 1999-2000 AND UPTO 29.10.19 99 PAGE 5 TO 1999-2000 AND UPTO 29.10.1999) ORDER DATED 06.07.2012, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 4. FROM THE SIDE OF THE RESPONDENT, FOLLOWING ORDER S WERE RELIED UPON:- 1. IT(SS)A NO.L0 & 28/AHD/2008 BLOCK PERIOD 90-91 TO 1999-00 & OTHERS ITAT 'D' BENCH AHMEDABAD ORDER IN THE CASE OF VIMAL VADILAL SHAH VS. DCIT ORDER DATED 21.5.2010 2. IT(SS)A NO. 65/AHD/2007 BLOCK PERIOD FROM 90-91 TO 1999-2000 ITAT 'C' BENCH AHMEDABAD ORDER IN THE CASE OF BALVANTRAI V.MEHTA VS. ACIT ORDER DATED 16.12.2010 3. MA NO.L55/AHD/2008 (IN ITSS A NO.81/AHD/2007) BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.89 TO 29. 10.99 ITAT 'D' BENCH AHMEDABAD ORDER IN THE CASE OF AMITBHAI B.SOJITRA VS. ACIT ORDER DATED 7.1.2008 4. IT(SS)A NO.95 & 96/AHD/2007 BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD FROM 30.10.89 TO 29. 10.99 ITAT 'D' BENCH AHMEDBAD ORDER IN THE CASE OF JAYESH T.DESAI VS. ACIT ORDER DATED 28.05.2010 5. IT(SS)A NO.66/AHD/2007 & 72/ AND/2007 BLOCK PERIOD ASSESSMENT YEAR 90-91 TO 99- 2000 & UPTO 29. 10.99 ITAT 'D' BENCH AHMEDABAD ORDER IN THE CASE OF SHAILESH M.DESAI VS. DCIT ORDER DATED 15.10.2010 6.GUJARAT HIGH COURT DECISION KHANDUBHAI VASANJI DESAI & ORS. VS. DY.CIT (236 ITR 73) (GUJ.) 4.1. ALL THESE CASES ARE COVERED BY SEARCH OPERATI ON WHICH WAS CONDUCTED ON M/S.OHM ORGANIZERS. IN THE ABOVE CITED ORDERS, THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOTED THAT SEARCH IN THE CASE OF OHM D EVELOPERS WAS CARRIED OUT ON 29.10.1999. THE TRIBUNAL HAS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF OHM DEVELOPERS WAS COMPLE TED ON 30.11.2001. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING MANISH MAHESHWARI 289 ITR 341 (SC)[SUPRA], THE SEVERAL RESPECTED CO-ORDINATE BENC HES HAVE UNANIMOUSLY HELD THAT THE BELATED ISSUANCE OF NOTIC E U/S.158BD WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION. OUT OF THE LIST OF THE ORDERS REPRODUCED ABOVE, WE IT(SS)A NO.508/AHD/2010 BLOCK PERIOD:1990-91 TO 1999-2000 AND UPTO 29.10.19 99 PAGE 6 HEREINBELOW REPRODUCE THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPHS FROM THE ORDER OF DCIT VS. SHRI SHAILESH M.DESAI [SUPRA] AS UNDER:- '6. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE A RE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSES BY THE ORDER OF ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH 'D' (CAMP AT SURAT) IN THE CASE OF VIMAL VADILAL SHAH & ORS (SUPRA) IN WHICH THE TRIBUNAL AT PARAGRAPH 11 OF THE ORDER HELD AS UNDER:- '11. IN E.J. ULAHANNA V. ACIT IN ITA NO.19/AHD/2007 PRONOUNCED ON 18-03-2009, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF MANOJ AGARWAL (SUPRA) HELD THA T WITHOUT THERE BEING SATISFACTION RECORDED PRIOR TO COMPLETI ON OF ASSESSMENT OF THE PERSON SEARCHED PROCEEDINGS SO IN ITIATED U/S 158BD OF THE ACT WILL NOT BE VALID. IN THAT CAS E NOTICE U/S 158BD OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 10-06-2004. BUT SEAR CHED AGAINST OHM DEVELOPERS WAS CARRIED OUT ON 29-10-199 9, THEREFORE ASSESSMENT U/S 158BD THEREOF COMPLETED AF TER 31- 10-2001 COULD NOT BE HELD VALID. IN THE CASE OF SHR I VISHNUBHAI R BAROT V. ACIT IN IT(SS)A NO.104/AHD/2009 ITAT AHMEDABAD 'D' BENCH PRONOUNCED ON 18-12-2009, IT WA S HELD, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COU RT IN THE CASE OF MANISH MAHESHWARI V. ACIT (2007) 289 ITR 34 1 (SC) AND MANOJ AGARWAL (SUPRA) THAT IF THE ASSESSMENT U/ S. 158BC OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF PERSON SEARCH (OHM DEVELO PERS) WAS COMPLETED ON 30-11-2001 THEN ISSUING NOTICE U/S 158 BD OF THE ACT ON 29-03-2006 AGAINST ASSESSES IS BARRED BY LIM ITATION. SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY THE ITAT AHEMDABAD BENCH IN IT(SS)A NO.25/AHD/2007 IN THE CASE OF ADIL PARVEZ R ANDERIA V. ACIT, CC-3(1), SURAT PRONOUNCED ON 01-09-2008. F OLLOWING THESE DECISIONS WE HOLD THAT THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT F RAMED IN CASE OF ALL THE ABOVE ASSESSES ARE NOT LEGALLY VALI D AND THEREFORE ARE QUASHED FOR THE REASON THAT NOTICES U /S 158BD OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED IN THESE CASES LONG AFTER COMPL ETION OF ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF PERSON SEARCHED I.E. OHM DEVELOPERS.' 7. WE MAY ALSO POINT OUT THAT RECENTLY THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN ITS UNREPORTED JUDGMENT IN ITA NO. 37 9 OF 2010 DATED 25-08- 2010 IN THE CASE OF CIT-I, LUDHIANA VS M/S PARVEEN FABRICS PVT LTD DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT BY PASSING THE F OLLOWING ORDER: '1. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE U NDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT ') AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIG ARH BENCH (B), CHANDIGARH (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE TR IBUNAL') PASSED IN I.T.(SS)A. NO19/CHAND/2009 DATED 127.8.2009 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.. 1996 TO 05.02.2003, PROPOSING TO RAI SE THE FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW:- IT(SS)A NO.508/AHD/2010 BLOCK PERIOD:1990-91 TO 1999-2000 AND UPTO 29.10.19 99 PAGE 7 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THE RECORDING OF SATISFACTION U/S 158BD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE PERSON SEARCHED AND CONSEQUENCE ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 158BDE ON 2.12.2006 WAS BELATED AND BEYOND THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED BY LAW WHEN THE SECTION 158 BD READ WITH SECTION 158BE DOES NOT SPECIFY THAT SATISFACTION HAS TO BE RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT U/S 158BC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ?' 2 A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON 5.2.2003 AT THE RESIDEN CE OF ONE S.K. BHATIA, AND FROM THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND AFTER FIN ALIZING BLOCK ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE SEARCHED PERSON ON 28.2.2005, PROCEEDIN GS WERE ALSO TAKEN AGAINST THE RESPONDENT AFTER RECORDING SATISFACTION ON 31.3.2006. NOTICE UNDER SECTION 158BD WAS ISSUED ON 2.12.2006 WHICH WAS CON TESTED BY THE RESPONDENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE SATISFACTION NOTE ITSELF WAS AFTER CONCLUSION OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND NOT DURING THE COURSE OF ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THIS PLEA WAS UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) FOLLOWING EARLIE R JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL IN MANOJ AGGARWAL V. DCIT (2008) 113 KTD 377 (DEL)(SB) . THE TRIBUNAL AFFIRMED THE SAID VIEW. 3. WE HAVE HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE. 4. AN IDENTICAL MATTER WAS CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT IN ORDER DATED 207.2010 IN ITA NO.591 OF 2009, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-1, L UDHIANA V. MRIDULA, PROP. M/S DHRUV FABRICS, LUDHIANA AND IT WAS OBSERVED: 'THE ACT NO WHERE SPECIFICALLY PRESCRIBES ANY TIME LIMIT OR LIMITATION FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 158BD O F THE ACT OR FOR RECORDING OF SATISFACTION BEFORE TAKING ACTION UNDE R THAT PROVISION. THE PLAIN AND REASONABLE CONSTRUCTION THAT CAN BE P LACED ON THE AFORESAID PROVISION WOULD BE THAT THE RECORDING OF SATISFACTION FOR TAKING ACTION AGAINST ANY OTHER PERSON UNDER SECTIO N 158BD OF THE ACT HAS TO BE BETWEEN INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UND ER SECTION 158BC AND BEFORE COMPLETION OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT UND ER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF THE PERSON SEARCHED I WOULD, THUS, MEAN THAT THE ACTION CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 158 BD OF THE ACT AGAINST A THIRD PARTY TO A SEARCH, IS NECESSARILY T O BE DURING THE COURSE OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTIO N 158BC OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. IT CANNOT BE AFTER THE CONCLUS ION OF THE SAME AS THERE IS NO OCCASION FOR AN ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE SEIZED MATERIAL OR DOCUMENTS OF THE SEARCHED PERSON WHEN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE CONCLUDED AND NO OTHER PROCEEDINGS ARE PENDING BEFORE HIM. IF ANY OTHER TI ME LIMIT IS READ IN THE PROVISIONS / STATUTE, IT SHALL LEAD TO ANOMA LY AND WOULD BE ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE. IT COULD NOT BE READ IN THE PROVISION THAT WHERE BLOCK ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE AGAINST WHOM ACTION UNDER S ECTION 132 OR 132A OF THE ACT HAD BEEN CARRIED OUT IS FINALIZE D, REVENUE CAN TAKE ACTION AT ANY TIME IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECI FIC LIMITATION PRESCRIBED IN THE STATUTE. A CONSTRUCTION WHICH LEA DS TO SUCH AN ANOMALY SHOULD BE AVOIDED. ' 5. THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IS, THUS, IN A CCORDANCE WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THIS COURT. NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISE S. IT(SS)A NO.508/AHD/2010 BLOCK PERIOD:1990-91 TO 1999-2000 AND UPTO 29.10.19 99 PAGE 8 6. THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ' 8. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT O F THE ABOVE DECISIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR INITIATION OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BD OF THE IT. ACT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AFTER LON G GAP OF COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF PERSONS SEARCHED, VIZ. M/ S OHM DEVELOPERS. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELO W AND QUASH THE SAME. AS A RESULT, GROUNDS 1 & 2 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED'. 5. FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION(S) OF THE TRIB UNAL, WE DISMISS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THESE DECISION OF THE CO-ORD INATE BENCH, WE CAN HOLD THAT THE NOTICE U/S.158BD IN THE PRESENT CASE WAS N OT A PROPER NOTICE. HENCE, THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS BASED UPON THE SAID NOTI CE, SHOULD NOT SURVIVE. IN THE RESULT, THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT(A), IS HEREBY AFFIRMED AND THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS HEREBY DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 19.07.2013 SD/- SD/- (A. K. GARODIA ) ( MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA ! ! ! ! '! '! '! '! / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. '(' ) * / CONCERNED CIT 4. *- / CIT (A) 5. !./ ), ) , 12( / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. /45 67 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , 8/ 1 ': ) , 12( ;