Gyanendra Kumar Singh, Kolkata V. DCIT, C.C. - XXIV, Kolkata, Kolkata

ITSSA 7/KOL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9999 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 06-07-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 24-08-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVI JAIN
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Block assessment
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

, C , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH: KOL KATA () BEFORE , /AND . . . . ' '' ''# '#'# '#, $% ) [BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, AM] ( %' & '' ) ( / I.T(SS).A NO.7 /KOL/2010 %) *+ ,-/ BLOCK PERIOD: 1987-88 TO 1997-98 GYANENDRA KUMAR SINGH VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER O F INCOME-TAX, (PAN: ALIPS9575R) C. C. XXIV, KOLKATA. ( /0 /APPELLANT ) (12/0/ RESPONDENT ) & ( %' & '' ) ( / I.T(SS).A NO.20/KOL/2010 %) *+ ,-/ BLOCK PERIOD: 1987-88 TO 1997-98 ITO, WARD-39(1), KOLKATA. VS. GYANENDRA KUMAR S INGH (/0 /APPELLANT ) (12/0/ RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 09.01.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27.01.2014 FOR THE ASSESSEE: SHRI ANIL KOCHAR FOR THE REVENUE: SHRI RAVI JAIN, CIT, DR $3 / ORDER PER SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: THESE CROSS APPEALS BY ASSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE ARI SING OUT OF ORDER OF CIT(A)- XXXVI, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO.146/CIT(A)-XXXVI/KOL/37 /CC-XXIV/04-05DATED 21.06.2010. ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY DY. CIT, CC-XXIV, KOLKATA U/S. 158BC(C) READ WITH SECTION 158BD OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFE RRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR BLOCK PERIOD 1987-88 TO 1997-98 VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 28.02.2000. 2. FIRST WE WILL DEAL WITH ASSESSEES APPEAL IN IT( SS)A NO.7/K/2010. THE FIRST ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS AS REGARD TO THE ASSUMPT ION OF JURISDICTION BY AO FOR INVOCATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BD IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY S ATISFACTION RECORDED BY AO OF THE SEARCHED PARTY. FOR THIS, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING TWO GROUNDS: 1. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THA T ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S. 158BD OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CORRECT AND VALID AND IN THAT VIE OF THE MATTER ERRED IN DISMISSING GROUNDS 1 TO 9 TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS APPEAL TO THE LD. CIT(A). 2. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE PROPERLY A PPRECIATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT AND OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE JURISDICT ION ASSUMED BY THE AO TO DETERMINE UNDISCLOSED INCOME UNDER CHAPTER XIV-B OF THE INCOM E-TAX ACT WAS IMPROPER, ILLEGAL AND THAT THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE AO OUGHT TO H AVE BEEN ANNULLED. 2 IT(SS)A NO. 7 & 20/K/2010 SHRI GYANENDRA KR. SINGH : BLOCK PERIOD 1987-88 TO 1997-98 3. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED ON 17.01.1997 IN THE GROUP OF SRI BINAY PRAKASH. DURING THE COURSE OF S EARCH DIFFERENT PREMISES OF THIS GROUP IN RANCHI, PATNA AND CALCUTTA WERE COVERED. IN THE CO URSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS, ACCORDING TO AO, EVIDENCE WERE FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH AND IN VIE OF SEARCH MATERIAL/INFORMATION, AS ARE AVAILABLE, PROCEEDINGS U/S. 158BD OF THE ACT WAS INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE DATED 28.01.19 98 WAS SERVED ON ASSESSEE FOR CALLING OF THE BLOCK RETURN. NO BLOCK RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTIC E U/S. 58BC R.W.S. 158BD OF THE ACT WAS FILED AND THERE AS NO COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICE ISSU ED. IN TERM OF THE ABOVE FACTS, THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE ISSUE OF ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S. 158 BD OF THE ACT AS THRE IS NO SATISFACTION RECORDED BY AO OF THE SEARCHED PARTY. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) AS WELL AS NOW BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT NO NOTICE CAN BE ISSUED U/S. 158B D OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE IF THERE IS NO SATISFACTION RECORDED BY AO, WHO HAS JURISDICTION O VER THE CASE OF THE PERSON WHO IS SUBJECTED TO SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S. 132 OF THE ACT . AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE ITO, WARD-39(5), KO LKATA, WHEREIN IT IS CLEARLY ADMITTED THAT NO SATISFACTION NOTE IS AVAIABLE IN THE FILE OF THE AS SESSEE. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SAID LETTER DATED 09.03.2011 READS AS UNDER: NO. 39(1)/KOLALIPS9575R/2010-11/510 09.03.2011 SHRI GYNENDRA KUMAR SINGH 4, GANGADHAR BABU LANE KOLKATA-700012. SIR, SUB: SHRI GYNENDRA KUMAR SINGH- ALIPS9575R BLOCK ASSESSMENT YEARS 1987-88 TO 1997- 88 CERTIFIED COPY OF SATISFACTION NOTE I SSUE OF REG. REF: YOUR LETTER DATED 11.02.2011 KINDLY REFER TO THE ABOVE. IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUE OF CERTIFIED COPY OF S ATISFACTION NOTE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH PROCEEDINGS U/S. 158BC/158BD OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 196 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.1987 TO 17.01.1997 (BLOCK ASST. YEARS 1987-88 TO 1997-98) WAS INITIATED. IT MAY PLEASE BE NOTD THAT THERE IS NO SATISFACTION NOTE A VAILABLE IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT FOLDERS, RECEIVED ON TRANSFER FROM CENTRAL CIRCLE-X XIV, KOLKATA. HENCE, NO CERTIFIED COPY OF SATISFACTION NOTE, AS PRAYED FOR IN YOUR AB OVE LETTER, CAN BE ISSUED BY THIS OFFICE. THIS IS FOR YOUR INFORMATION. YOURS FAITHFULLY, SD/- N. G. SAHA ITO, WARD-39(1), KOLKATA 3 IT(SS)A NO. 7 & 20/K/2010 SHRI GYANENDRA KR. SINGH : BLOCK PERIOD 1987-88 TO 1997-98 ON QUERY FROM THE BENCH, LD. CIT DR FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THERE IS NO SATISFACTION RECORDED BY THE AO WHO HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE OF THE PE RSON WHO IS SUBJECTED TO SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S. 132 OF THE ACT. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANC ES, WE FEEL THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE B Y THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MANISH MAHESHARI VS. ACIT (2007) 289 IT R 341(SC), WHEREIN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT RECORDED HIS SATI SFACTION, WHICH IS MANDATORY; NOR HAS HE TRANSFERRED THE CASE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA VING JURISDICTION OVER THE MATTER, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENTS OF THE H IGH COURT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED, WHICH ARE SET ASIDE ACCORDINGLY. THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED . HOWEVER, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THERE SHALL BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. AS THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED AND FACTUALLY THER E IS NO SATISFACTION RECORDED BY THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PARTY, WE QUASH THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S. 158BD OF THE ACT. THE APPAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED ON JURSIDICTION. AS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED ON JURISDICTION REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND THAT OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 5. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.01.2 014 SD/- SD/- . . . . ' '' ''# '#'# '# , $% , (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 27TH JANUARY, 2013 45 *6' 7 JD.(SR.P.S.) $3 8 1 9$ ,:- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . /0 / APPELLANT SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SINGH, C/O, MANOJ GUPTA, FCA, 4, GANGADHAR BABU LANE, 1 ST FLOOR, KOLKATA- 2 12/0 / RESPONDENT DCIT, CC-XXIV, KOLKATA/ITO, WARD-39( 1), KOLKATA. 3 . 3* ( )/ THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. 5. 3* / CIT KOLKATA ?@ 1* / DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA 2 1/ TRUE COPY, $3*A/ BY ORDER, ' /ASSTT. REGISTRAR .