M/S GMI BUILDERS PVT LTD ,INDORE V. DY CIT C-2(1) , GWALIOR

MA 10/AGR/2020

AI Insights

The case involves multiple Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) filed by various companies against the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Gwalior, concerning the assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09, and 2009-10. The core issue revolves around the validity of the initiation of proceedings and the completion of assessments under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following a search and seizure operation. The Tribunal examined whether the satisfaction required for initiating proceedings under section 153C was properly recorded in the cases of the appellants, particularly focusing on the procedural adherence in the context of the legal standards set by various judicial precedents and CBDT circulars.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 779435 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 8 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-02-2020
• Other Referred Cases: Manish Maheshwari vs. ACIT, CIT vs. Gopi Apartment, Vinod Kumar Choursia vs. ACIT, ACIT vs. Global Estate, Pepsi Foods P. Ltd. vs. ACIT, CIT vs. Radheshyam Bansal, ACIT vs. M. N. Rajaraman, Bharat Ginning & Pressing Factory vs. ITO, CIT vs. Mechmen, Pr. CIT vs. Nikki Drugs & Chemicals P. Ltd., DSL Properties P Ltd. vs. DCIT, ACIT vs. M. N. Rajaraman, CIT V GM Mittal Stainless Steels Pvt. Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIL KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: KAILASH AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Invalid notice; Question of law; Unexplained investment; Document seized; Documents seized; Search and seizure; Block assessment; Assessment record; Tangible material
• Section: 143(3); 263; 153A; 68; 69

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, DB: AGRA (Through Physical / Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. No.04/Agr/2020 Arising Out of ITA No.209 /Agr/2017 [Assessment Year: 2008-09] M/s GMI Buildtech Private Limited, 201, Starlit Tower, Indore, (M.P.) VS Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2,Gwalior. PAN- AACCG9957D Appellant Respondent M.A. No.05/Agr/2020 Arising Out of ITA No.345/Agr/2017 [Assessment Year: 2009-10] M/s GMI Infrastrucure Private Limited, 201, Starlit Tower, Indore, (M.P.) VS Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2,Gwalior. PAN- AADCG0993L Appellant Respondent M.A. Nos. 06&07/Agr/2020 Arising Out of ITA Nos.199 and 200/Agr/2017 [Assessment Years: 2007-08 and 2008-09] M/s Arth Infrabuild Private Limited, 20/1, New Palasia, Indore, MP VS Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2,Gwalior. PAN- AAGCA0939H Appellant Respondent Printed from counselvise.com MA- 13& 14/AGr/2020 along with other cases M/s Shaurya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. 2 M.A. No.08/Agr/2020 Arising Out of ITA No.201/Agr/2017 [Assessment Year: 2007-08] M/s Chahat Project Private Limited, 301, Silver Arc Plaza 20/1, New Plasia Indore, M.P. VS Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2,Gwalior. PAN- AAKCS3701R Appellant Respondent M.A. Nos. 09 & 10/Agr/2020 Arising Out of ITA Nos.207 and 208/Agr/2017 [Assessment Years: 2008-09 and 2009-10] M/s GMI Builders Private Limited, 201, Starlit Tower, Indore, (M.P.) VS Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Gwalior. PAN- AACCG9956C Appellant Respondent M.A. Nos. 11 & 12/Agr/2020 Arising Out of ITA Nos.211 and 212/Agr/2017 [Assessment Years: 2008-09 and 2009-10] M/s GMI Real Estate Private Limited, 208, 4th Floor, Kanchan Sagar, 18/1, Old Palasia Indore, (M.P.) VS Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Gwalior. PAN- AACCG9959P Appellant Respondent M.A. Nos.13 And14/Agr/2020 Arising Out of ITA Nos.- 220 & 221/Agr/2017 [Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09] M/s Shaurya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., 301, Silver ARC Plaza, 20/1, New Palasia, Indore. VS Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Gwalior. PAN- AAKCS4334A Appellant Respondent Printed from counselvise.com MA- 13& 14/AGr/2020 along with other cases M/s Shaurya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. 3 M.A. No.15/Agr/2020 Arising Out of ITA No.223/Agr/2017 [Assessment Year: 2007-08] M/s Shaurya Projects Private Limited, 20/1, New Palasia Indore, (M.P.) VS Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Gwalior. PAN- AAKCS3701R Appellant Respondent M.A. Nos. 17 and 18/Agr/2020 Arising Out of ITA Nos.225 and 226/Agr/2017 [Assessment Years: 2008-09 and 2010-11] M/s T.R. Properties Private Limited, 20/1, new Palasia, Indore, M.P VS Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Gwalior. PAN- AACCT6710F Appellant Respondent Appellant by Shri Kailash Agrawal, CA Respondent by Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement .10.2025 ORDER PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM, These bunch of Miscellaneous Applications (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MA’) have been filed by the assessee u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) against the order dated Printed from counselvise.com MA- 13& 14/AGr/2020 along with other cases M/s Shaurya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. 4 20.12.2019 of the Tribunal in the ITA numbers as mentioned above against the respective Miscellaneous Applications. 2. Since, common issues are involved in all these Miscellaneous Applications, therefore, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. First, we shall take up MA No.13 and 14/Agr/2020 in ITA No.220 & 221/Agr/2017 in the case of M/s Shaurya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2007-08 and 2008-09 as the lead case, which was also the lead case in the bunch of appeals filed by the Department as referred above vide the respective ITAs and decided by the Tribunal vide consolidated order dated 20.12.2019. 4. A search and seizure action was conducted in the premises at 208, Loha Mandi, Indore, belonging to M/s Arth Real Developers (MP) Ltd. on 11.03.2010 Thereafter, an assessment under Section 143 r.w.s. 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), was passed on 09.11.2011,wherein additions were made on account of share capital/unsecured loans/sundry creditors under section 68 of the Act and unexplained investment in land under Section 69 of the Act as per the details mentioned in the assessment order. Printed from counselvise.com MA- 13& 14/AGr/2020 along with other cases M/s Shaurya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. 5 5. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), where inter-alia the assessee raised legal grounds vide ground no.1 and 2, challenging the validity of initiation of the proceedings and the completion of assessment u/s 153C of the Act. In the legal grounds, it was submitted that no satisfaction for initiation of proceedings u/s 153C of the Act, was recorded by the AO either in the appellant’s case as well as in the case of the assessee in whose case search u/s 132(1) of the Act was carried out wherefrom the specific incriminating material pertaining to the appellant were found and seized and thus made the proceedings bad in law. The said ground no.1 and 2 of the appeal filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) are reproduced as under:- “1. The Appellant submits that the learned Assessing Officer has completed the assessment u/s 143(3) read with section 153-C, whereas nothing belonging to the appellant has been found which can be said that forming part of undisclosed transactions i.e. no incriminating documents have been found and thus, the order so passed is ab-initio void and requires to be quashed. 2. The Appellant submits that the learned Assessing Officer has erred in making the assessment u/s 153-C and ignoring the legal interpretation of section 153-C in various decisions of Hon'ble Tribunals and without providing us the details and/or documents found of incriminating nature, if any, even on specific request, on the basis which he was satisfied that the case is covered under the provisions of section 153-C i.e. no satisfaction has been recorded by the learned Assessing Officer and thus, the order so passed is ab-initio void and requires to be quashed.” Printed from counselvise.com MA- 13& 14/AGr/2020 along with other cases M/s Shaurya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. 6 5.1. In this regard, the Ld. CIT(A) called for a Remand Report and the Remand Report of the AO is reproduced as under: 5.2. Typed version of the satisfaction note is reproduced as under:- Printed from counselvise.com MA- 13& 14/AGr/2020 along with other cases M/s Shaurya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. 7 \"During the course of search action conducted 132 of the I.T. Act 1961, certain papers/documents are seized from the premises 208, Lohamndi, Indore of M/s Arth Real Developers (M.P.) Pvt. Ltd., M/s Arth City Pvt. Ltd and M/s K.S. Oils Ltd. I am satisfied that these papers belong to M/s Shourya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Notice u/s 153C is required to be issued for verification of the same.\" 6. The assessee furnished its counter reply to the Remand Report and the relevant extract of the same as mentioned in paras no.1 to 4 on page nos.37 and 38 in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:- “From the perusal of remand report and copy of satisfaction note reveals as under:- 1. the learned AO have himself admitted that \"while initiating the proceedings under section 153C of the I.T. Act 1961, the A.O. has recorded the reasons for the same and the copy of the said reason has been kept in the record of the cases in which the assessment under s. 153A has been completed\" and thus it is a undisputed fact no satisfaction was recorded in the case of searched person, as the language of satisfaction note starts from \"SATISFACTION NOTE in the case of M/s Shaurya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.\". In this regard reliance is further placed on the following decisions:- i) Manish Maheshwari vs. ACIT 289 ITR 341 (SC) ii) CIT vs. Gopi Appartment 365 ITR 421 (All.HC) iii) Vinod Kumar Choursia vs. ACIT 67(II) ITCL 383 (Lucknow ITAT) iv) ACIT vs. Global Estate 142 ITD 740 (Agra ITAT) 2. There are number of defects in the satisfaction note as:- a. there is no date on the satisfaction note and thus the same is having no meaning. b. there is no mention of the relevant or reference of material under seizure and thus, without referring the same how could the AO was satisfied that certain papers / documents seized from Printed from counselvise.com MA- 13& 14/AGr/2020 along with other cases M/s Shaurya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. 8 the premises 208, Loha Mandi, belongs to the assessee appellant. c. In this regard reliance is placed on Dehli High Court decision in the case of Pepsi Foods P. Ltd. vs. ACIT 367 ITR 112 wherein it is categorically held that \"It was evident from the above satisfaction note that apart from saying that the documents belonged to the assessee and that the AO was satisfied that it was a fit case for issuance of a notice under section 153C, there was nothing which would indicate as to how the presumptions which were to be normally raised, had been rebutted by the AO. Mere use or mention of the word \"satisfaction\" or the words \"I am satisfied\" in the order or the note would not meet the requirement of the concept of satisfaction as used in section 153C\". Further reliance is placed on another decision of Dehli High Court in the case of CIT vs. Radheshyam Bansal 337 ITR 217 wherein it is held that \"the word satisfaction refers to the state of mind of the AO of the person searched, which gets reflected in a tangible shape/form when it is reduced into writing. It is the conclusion drawn or the finding recorded on the foundation of the material available. The satisfaction must reflect rational connection with or relevant bearing between the material available and undisclosed income of the third person. The rational connection postulates and requires satisfaction of the AO that a third perso, has undisclosed income| on the basis of evidence or material before him. The material itself should not be vague, indefinite, distinct or remote\". Thus the satisfaction required for proceedings u/s 153C cannot be reduced to a mere formality of forwarding the documents found in the course of search which did not belong to the person searhed and which belonged to the persor against whom proceedings u/s 153C were sought to be initiated as observed by the Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT in the case of Beejay Security and Finance Ltd. vs. ACIT ITA no. 4859/MUM/2009. Reliance is further placed on the following decision:- i) ACIT vs. M. N. Rajaraman 5 ITR (Trib.) 261 (Chennai ITAT) Printed from counselvise.com MA- 13& 14/AGr/2020 along with other cases M/s Shaurya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. 9 d. it is stated in the remand report that in the case of Arth Real Developers (MP) Pvt Ltd is the company which is relevant but in the satisfaction note name of three companies i.e. Arth Real Developers (MP) Pvt Ltd, Arth City Pvt. Ltd. and K S Oils Limited are mentioned. e. The learned AO has satisfied for issue of notice u/s 153C for verification and not for the assessment. 3. It has been categorically admitted by the learned AO Most importantly before taking any action u/s 153C in the case of assessee appellant Shaurya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. it was mandatory for the AO to make a satisfaction note in the case of searched person i.e. Arth Real Developers Pvt. Ltd. It is a well settled law that unless there is a proper satisfaction in the case of searched person and the relevant material under seizure is handed over/referred to the AO though may be the same in both cases, cannot assume jurisdiction u/s 153C. Thus, the prime condition i.e. satisfaction note in the case of searched person was not adhere and therefore whole proceedings u/s 153C becomes void. Reliance is further placed on the following decisions:- i. Pr. CIT vs. Nikki Drugs & Chemicals P. Ltd. 238 Taxmann 305 (Del HC) ii. DSL Properties P Ltd. vs. DCIT 60 SOT 88 (Del ITAT) iii. Bharat Ginning & Pressing Factory vs. ITO 155 TTJ 343 (Ahd. ITAT) 4. Consideringthe above facts we invite your honour's kind attention on our earliersubmissions dated 13.12.2016, 20.12.2016 and 12.01.2017 are relied upon and in view of the circular of the CBDT and jurisdictional High Court Decision in the case of CIT vs. Mechmen 380 ITR 591 (MP HC). It is prayed that the assessment so framed u/s 153C is ab-initio void and kindly be annulled and oblige.” 7. The ld. CIT(A) took note of the above submissions and noted that the assessee by relying on the decisions of various judicial Printed from counselvise.com MA- 13& 14/AGr/2020 along with other cases M/s Shaurya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. 10 pronouncements and the Circular No. 24/2015 dated 31st December, 2015 of the CBDT contended that the action of the AO in initiating the proceedings and completing the assessment u/s 153C of the Act was bad in law. 8. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that from the undated satisfaction note it was evident that the satisfaction recorded in the case of the assessee because certain papers/documents were seized in the search conducted in the premises of M/s Arth Real Developers (MP) Pvt. Ltd., M/s Arth City Pvt. Ltd and KS Oil Ltd. and no satisfaction was recorded by the AO of M/s Arth Real Developers (MP) Pvt. Ltd., M/s Arth City Pvt. Ltd and KS Oil Ltd to the effect that proceeding under section 153C was to be initiated in the case of the assessee. 9. In view of these finding arrived at by the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) held that “in view of above discussed legal and factual position, I am of the view that the initiation of the assessment proceedings in the case of the appellant is not in conformity to the provision of section 153C and accordingly the assessment order dated 9/11/2011 is held to be bad in law. Hence, these grounds of appeal are allowed.” 10. The relevant extract of the discussion made in the order of the Ld. CIT(A), in this regard, is reproduced as under: Printed from counselvise.com MA- 13& 14/AGr/2020 along with other cases M/s Shaurya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. 11 “5.1 Ground Nos. 1 & 2: The appellant in these grounds of appeal contested the validity of initiation of the proceedings and the completion of assessment u/s 153C of the Act. 5.1.1 The AO was specifically asked to verify from the records and report regarding the claim of the appellant that no satisfaction for initiation of proceedings u/s 153C has been recorded by the AO either in the appellant's case as well as in the case of the assessee in which case search u/s 132(1) was carried out wherefrom the specific incriminating material pertaining to the appellant were found and seized and thus made the proceedings bad in law. In In response to the same, the AO has submitted his Remand Report on the issue as reproduced above in Para 4 of this order which is considered and placed on record. 5.1.2 The appellant furnished in its counter reply to the Remand Report of the AO which is also gone through and reproduced in Para 4 above and argued the issues of appeal relying on the decisions of various judicial pronouncement and the Circular No. 24/2015 dated 31 December, 2015 of the CBDT and contended that the action of the AO in initiating the proceedings and completing the assessment u/s 153C of the Act was bad in law. 5.1.3 Decision: After carefully considering the submissionsput forth on behalf of the appellant & the judgments of the cases relied upon, examining the relevant case records and perusing the facts of the case, the impugned assessment order, the remand report & the rejoinder thereon and other material evidences brought on record, this issue of appeal relating to the initiation and completion of assessment proceeding under section 153 C is decided as under:- (i) In the M/s Arth Real Developers (M.P.) Pvt. Ltd, M/s Arth City Pvt. Ltd. and M/s KS Oil Ltd group companies a search action under section 132 was undertaken on 11.03.2010. In the search some documents related to the appellant have alleged to be found. As per the Id AR the appellant vide letter dated 29.09.2011 has requested the AO to provide detail in respect of the alleged seized documents and also requested the AO to provide the copy of satisfaction note. As per the satisfaction note was not given hence the return was filed under protest. (ii) In the remand report dated 20.02.2017the AO has informed that after going through the assessment record and other records available in his office he has found that the following satisfaction under section 153C was recorded in the case of the appellant:- Printed from counselvise.com MA- 13& 14/AGr/2020 along with other cases M/s Shaurya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. 12 \"SATISFACTION NOTE In the case of M/s ShauryaBuildcom Pvt. Ltd,, Lohamandi, Indore for the A.Y. 2007-08 for issue of notice u/s 153C of the I.T. Act, 1961. \"During the course of search action conducted 132 of the I.T.Act 1961, certain papers/documents are seized from the premises 208, Lohamndi, Indore of M/s Arth Real Developers (M.P.) Pvt. Ltd., M/s Arth City Pvt. Ltd and M/s K.S. Oils Ltd. I am satisfied that these papers belong to M/s Shourya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Notice u/s 153C is required to be issued for verification of the same.\" (iii) From the undated satisfaction note it is evident that this satisfaction recorded in the case of the appellant because certain papers/documents were seized in the search conducted in the premises of M/s Arth Real Developers (MP) Pvt. Ltd., M/s Arth City Pvt. Ltd and KS Oil Ltd. and no satisfaction was recorded by the AO of M/s Arth Real Developers (MP) Pvt. Ltd., M/s Arth City Pvt. Ltd and KS Oil Ltd that proceeding under section 153C is to be initiated in the case of the appellant. In the case of CIT v Mechman [2016] 380 ITR 591 the hon'ble MP High Court has held :- \"SEARCH AND SEIZURE ASSESSMENT OF THIRD PERSON CONDITION PRECEDENT RECORDING OF SATISFACTION BY ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER PERSON IN RESPECT OF WHOM SEARCH CONDUCTED THAT MONEY OR ASSETS DISCOVERED DURING SEARCH BELONG TO THIRD PERSON RECORDING OF SATISFACTION NECESSARY EVEN IF ASSESSING OFFICER OF BOTH PERSONS SAME-INCOME TAX ACT, S.153A Thus, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v/s Mechmen (supra) has categorically held that recording of satisfaction note is mandatory at both the stages i.e. first in the case of person searched which is the origin of proceedings u/s 153C in the case of other person and secondly by the AO of the other person. It is also observed that where no reference of any material is made in the order. such proceedings are void. In the case ofPepsi Foods P. Ltd. v ACIT [2014] 367 ITR 112 the hon'ble Delhi High Court has held:- Printed from counselvise.com MA- 13& 14/AGr/2020 along with other cases M/s Shaurya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. 13 \"SEARCH AND SEIZURE ASSESSMENT OF THIRD PERSON- NOTICE-CONDITIONS PRECEDENT-ASSESSING OFFICER OF PERSON IN RESPECT OF WHOM SEARCH CONDUCTED MUST ARRIVE AT SATISFACTION THAT A DOCUMENTS SEIZED BELONGS TO SOME OTHER PERSON MODE OF EXPRESSING SATISFACTION USING WORD \"SATISFACTION” OR “WORDS” AM SATISFIED\" - NOT SATISFACTION AS USED IN SECTION 153C- PRESUMPTION THAT DOCUMENTS BELONG TO PERSON FROM WHOM SEIZED- NOTHING TO INDICATE AS TO HOW PRESUMPTION REBUTTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER- SATISFACTION NOT DISCERNIBLE FROM SATISFACTION NOTE- NOTICE NOT VALID INCOME TAX ACT, 1961,SS. 132(4A), 153C.” In the case of Manish Maheshwari Vs. ACIT (2007) 289 ITR 341 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under on Page 348 of the report:- 11- The condition precedent for invoking a block assessment that search has been conducted under section 132, or documents or assets have been requisitioned under section 132A. The said provision vault apply to the case of any person in respect of whom search 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 precedent wherefor 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 documents 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.\" (iv) In the present case though the AO has not recorded satisfaction in the case of person searched but has recorded the satisfaction in the case of the appellant Shourya Buildcon. Hence, the next question which arises is whether the satisfaction recorded in the case of the appellant fulfills the requirement of law or not. In the case of Manish Maheswari v ACIT 289 ITR 341 the hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the search provisions are drastic in nature and it has draconian consequences. For this reason, the satisfaction for the purpose of initiation of proceeding under section 153C in the case of person other than person searched has to be objective satisfaction. Printed from counselvise.com MA- 13& 14/AGr/2020 along with other cases M/s Shaurya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. 14 In the satisfaction note recorded in the case of the appellant there is no mention of documents etc. belonging to the appellant which were found in the search of M/s Arth Real Developers (M.P.) Pvt. Ltd., M/s Arth City Pvt. Ltd and M/s K.S. Oils Ltd. Even the name of searched person from whose premises papers were seized is not mentioned. In the assessment order passed under section 153C, the AO has not made any addition on the basis of incriminating documents belonging to the appellant found in the search of M/s Arch Real Developers (M.P.) Pvt. Ltd., M/s Arth City Pvt. Ltd and M/s K.S. Oils Ltd. The letter on the basis of which the on money is worked out does not belong to the appellant. I am of the opinion that the satisfaction recorded in the case of Shourya Buildcon (appellant) is not objective satisfaction. My this view is supported by following judicial pronouncements: - In the case of Manoj Aggarwal V. Dy. CIT (Delhi) (SB)113 ITD 484 a five-member Special Bench of Tribunal has held as under: - 115. Section 158BD as said earlier begins with the expression \"where the Assessing Officer is satisfied and so the very section implies a recording of satisfaction. The satisfaction contemplated is a judicious satisfaction and not a subjective satisfaction and unless the same is recorded it is not possible for any person to discern whether the satisfaction meets the requirements of law at all. The satisfaction can be found in the order passed under section 158BC and if no such order is passed then it will have to be found in the note handing over the material seized to the Assessing Officer assessing the other person. In any event, it has to be writing and in view of section 158BE, the said recording has to be made before the time set in section 158BE expires. After the said date, it is not possible to invoke section 158BD at all In the case of Y.SUBBARAJU & CO. vs. ACIT. (2004) 91 ITD 118 (BANG.) (S.B.) the Hon'ble Special Bench of the Tribunal has observed in Paragraph 9 on Page 133 of the report as under: - \"9. In the light of the above discussions, we are of the view that satisfaction of the Assessing Officer that undisclosed income belongs to other person is justiciable and when called in question, the authorities cannot escape to demonstrate the material that led to the satisfaction that undisclosed income of other person has been detected by the Department as a result of search. If the Department, for any reason, has no material whatsoever to come to that view, the proceedings under section 158BD itself will have Printed from counselvise.com MA- 13& 14/AGr/2020 along with other cases M/s Shaurya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. 15 to go because the very foundation for the assumption of jurisdiction becomes non-existent. Although the judicial authorities are not entitled to go into the sufficiency of thereasons, the existence of the reasons for satisfaction can always be gone into by the judicial authorities In the case of CIT V GM Mittal Stainless Steels Pvt. Ltd. (2003)263 ITR 255(SC)the Hon'bleSupreme Court in placitum G on page 257 of the report has observed as under: - \"Although nobody appears on behalf of the respondent despite service of notice of appeal, we are of the view that the High Court was entirely correct in deciding the question framed in favour of the assessee and against the revenue Section 263 of the Income- tax requires that the Commissioner can call for and examine the record of any proceeding under the Income-tax Act only on the basis of his being satisfied. (1) that the Assessing Officer was erroneous in passing the assessment orders, and (2) that the decision of the Assessing Officer was prejudicial to the interest of revenue.Needless to say the satisfaction must be one which is objectively justifiable and can not be the mere ipse dixit of the Commissioner.\" (v) My attention was drawn to the Circular No 24/2015 dated 31 December, 2015 of the Board in respect of this legal issue which was issued after considering the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Calcutta Knitwears. The CBDT has categorically directed to withdraw all proceedings or not to be pressed any issue where satisfaction is not recorded as per guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. (vi) In view of above discussed legal and factual position, I am of the view that the initiation of the assessment proceedings in the case of the appellant is not in conformity to the provision of section 153C and accordingly the assessment order dated 9/11/2011 is held to be bad in law. Hence, these grounds of appeal are allowed. Ground nos. 3-5:- These grounds of appeal of the appellant are rendered academic in view of the fact that the Ground Nos 1 & 2 of the appellant challenging the validity of the order passed u/s 153C of the Act has been allowed in appeal in Para 5.1.3 above. Therefore, these grounds of appeal are dismissed for statistical purposes” (emphasis supplied by us) Printed from counselvise.com MA- 13& 14/AGr/2020 along with other cases M/s Shaurya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. 16 11. Aggrieved by the said order, the department filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, after considering the submissions of both parties, remanded the appeal back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merit as well as on the legal grounds raised by the assessee and directed to decide the above said appeals in the light of the principles reproduced in the order and also in the light of the documents prepared by the assessing officer of the searched person and also of the other person(assessee). 12. For remanding back the matter, the Tribunal has given its findings in para no. 20 and the directions for remanding in para no.21, which are reproduced as under: 20. In the light of the above said judgments of various Hon’ble High Courts and hon’ble Supreme Court if we will examine the satisfaction recorded by the AO and order passed by the Ld. CIT (A), then we shall come to the conclusion A. The satisfaction was duly recorded by the AO in the file of the assessee. B. The copy of the said reason has been kept in record of the cases in which assessment u/s 153A has taken place. C. The AO of the searched person and assessee were the same. D. In the satisfaction it is mentioned that certain papers were seized from the premises of M/s Arth Real Printed from counselvise.com MA- 13& 14/AGr/2020 along with other cases M/s Shaurya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. 17 Developers (M.P.) Pvt. Ltd., M/s Arth City Pvt. Ltd. And M/s K.S. Oils Ltd. E. It is not clear from the assessment order as well as from order impugned before us, in or from whose possession/premises the certain documents belonging to the assessee were seized. Further it is not clear in whose case file, out of the three persons mentioned in the satisfaction note the satisfaction was recorded by the AO before initiating the proceeding u/s 153C against the assessee. These aspects have not been examined by the Commissioner while passing the impugned order. F. Neither the AO has given the details of the documents seized during the course of search on 11.03.2010 nor it was examined by the Commissioner appeal at the time of passing of the impugned order. Though in paragraph-1 of the assessment order the AO mentioned that during the course of search action belonging to M/s Arth Real Development on 11.03.2010 certain papers/documents pertaining to the assessee have been seized vide Annexure to the Panchnama. However, in paragraph 12 of the assessment order the AO mentioned that certain papers/documents were seized showing the payment of\"On Money\" as detailed in the assessment order of the K.S. City Pvt. Ltd.Though there is a contradiction in the case of the AO, as in paragraph 1, AO is alleging that the documents were seized during the search action in the premises of M/s Arth Real Development, whereas in paragraph 12 the AO is contradicting and stating that the details is given in the assessment order of K.S. City. However, this aspect has not been examined by the Commissioner while passing the impugned order. G. The AO in the remand report has not given a categorical reply in whose searched person file, the copy of the satisfaction note was kept out of the three searched persons mentioned in the Assessment order. In our considered opinion, the satisfaction is required to be recorded first in the file of search person satisfying that the document seized during the search proceedings Printed from counselvise.com MA- 13& 14/AGr/2020 along with other cases M/s Shaurya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. 18 belongs to other person and thereafter the AO of the search person is required to transmit the record to the AO of the other person who had jurisdiction over such other person. The AO of other person, is also required to record the satisfaction mentioning therein that the document seized etc. belongs to the assessee (other person) and it would have bearing on the determination of the total income of other such person. H. In the present case, nothing had been brought on record by the Ld. CIT appeal after going through record, that these conditions have been violated by the AO. In our view, it is a fundamental premise of open justice, that factors, documents and reasons which have weighed in the mind of the CIT(A) should be recorded in the order. Merely recording of summary order is not sufficient. The details and the reasons for coming to the conclusions which prompted the CIT(A) to quash the proceedings should be mentioned by the CIT(A) while passing the order. Nothing has been done in the present case. 21. in the above view, we deem it appropriate to remand back all these appeals to the file of the learned CIT appeal for a fresh adjudication on merit as well as on the legal grounds raised by the assessee. The learned CIT appeal is directed to decide the above said appeals in the light of the principles reproduced hereinabove and also in the light of the documents prepared by the assessing officer of the searched person and also of the other person(assessee). (Emphasis supplied by us) 13. Against the above order of the Tribunal, the assessee has filed these Miscellaneous Applications. In the M.A., it is submitted despite the fact that the satisfaction note was not recorded by the AO, in the case of the searched person, as held by the ld. CIT(A) and therefore, by not accepting the decision of the jurisdictional Madhya Pradesh High Court Printed from counselvise.com MA- 13& 14/AGr/2020 along with other cases M/s Shaurya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. 19 in the case of CIT vs. Mechman [2016] 380 ITR 591 and remanding the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) by the Tribunal, was a mistake apparent from record and therefore, the said order should be recalled. The relevant extract of the submission as stated in para 25 of the M.A, are reproduced as under: “ 25. That the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court (Supra) is binding on the Hon'ble Bench, in view of the decision, at both the stages satisfaction is mandatory u/s 153C have categorically been decided. Thus, in the instant appeal, it is an admitted fact that no satisfaction was recorded by the learned Assessing Officer of the searched person, moreso there is no reference of any seized material in the assessment order by which it could be said such material pertains to the appellant company. This has also been observed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mechmen (Supra), wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that where there is no reference of any seized material in the order, proceedings u/s 153C is ab- initio void. That on the issue of satisfaction at both the stages, which is mandatory and the same is observed by the Hon'ble Bench, in clause G of para 20 of its order. Thus, the basis on which learned CIT(A) has held the proceedings u/s 153C is void, find support from the observation of the Hon'ble Bench. Thus, it is submitted that the conclusion so drawn will become irrelevant where prime issue i.e. no satisfaction was recorded in the case of searched person is an admitted fact. Even though conclusion so drawn by the Hon'ble Bench, have also been dealt hereunder:- Observations of the Hon’ble Bench Our Comments a. The satisfaction was duly recorded by the AO in the file of the assessee. The assessee is not the person in whose case search action has been carried out. That thesatisfaction is required to be recorded in the file of person searched in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Knitwear (Supra) and considering the said decision the CBDT had issued a circular no.24/2015 dated 31 December 2015. The said view has also be taken by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mechmen (Supra). In the Printed from counselvise.com MA- 13& 14/AGr/2020 along with other cases M/s Shaurya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. 20 instant case it is admitted fact that no satisfaction has been recorded in the file of person searched. The Hon'ble Bench itself have observed the same in para G of the order dated 20.12.2019. b. The copy of the said reason has been kept in record of the cases in which assessment u/s 153A has taken place. Keeping the copy of reason in the records of the cases in which assessments u/s 153A has taken place do not fulfill the requirements of the provisions of section 153C. Even in the file of the cases in which assessments u/s 153A has taken place, no notings in this regard has been made on order sheet or otherwise. Only photocopy of the said undated reasons have been kept in one search persons out of many referred in such satisfaction. c. The AO of the searched person and assessee were the same. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Knitwear wherein it is categorically stated that where the AO of the searched person and other person is same than also reasons has to be recorded first in the file of person searched. In the circular no 24/2015 dated 31.12.2015 also it is specifically mentioned that the satisfaction has to be recorded in the file of person searched even if the AO of the searched person and other person are same. That the aforesaid contention also find support from various discussed in the body of the order. So it was mandatory for the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction in the case of searched person even though the Assessing Officer is same. d. In the satisfaction it is mentioned certain papers were seized That where no satisfaction has been recorded in the case of searched person relevance of Printed from counselvise.com MA- 13& 14/AGr/2020 along with other cases M/s Shaurya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. 21 from premises of M/s Arth Developers (M.P.) Pvt. Ltd., M/s City Pvt. Ltd. And M/s K.S. Oils Ltd document/papers etc. belonging to such other person is immaterial. Even in the instant case. no details of papers/documents etc. so found from the premises of person searched has been provided to the assessee during the assessment proceedings, even in the assessment order there is no reference of any paper/document related to the assessee found during the course of search from the premises of person's searched. The Hon'ble DelhiHigh Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Pvt 14d. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2014) 52 Taxmann.com 220 has observed that 'apart from saying that the documents belonged to the petitioner and that the Assessing Officer is satisfied that it is a fit case for issuance of a notice under section 153C, there is nothing which would indicate as to how the presumptions which are to be normally raised as indicated above, have been rebutted by the Assessing Officer. Mere use or mention of the word \"satisfaction\" or the words \"I am satisfied\" in the order or the note would not meet the requirement of the concept of satisfaction as used in section 153C of the said Act. Moreso the Hon'ble MP High Court has held that unless reference of seized material has not been made in the order, proceedings u/s 153C is void. e. It is not clear from the assessment order as well as from order impugned before us, in From the perusal of the remand report furnished by the learned Assessing Officer before the learned Printed from counselvise.com MA- 13& 14/AGr/2020 along with other cases M/s Shaurya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. 22 or from whose possession/premises documents belonging to the assessee certain were seized. Further it is not clear in whose case file, out of the three persons mentioned in the satisfaction note the satisfaction was recorded by the AO before initiating the proceedings u/s 153C against the assessee. These aspects have not been examined by the Commissioner while passing the impugned order. Commissioner of Income (Appeals), Gwalior, it is an admitted fact that no satisfaction was recorded in the cases of person's searched. Therefore, the question that in whose case satisfaction was recorded before initiating the proceedings u/s 153C against the assessee does not arise. As far as these aspects have not been examined by the Commissioner while passing the impugned order is concerned, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) have examined the case records of person/s searched as well as the assessee before passing the impugned order and this vary fact was mentioned in the order so passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). It is also relevant, as the Assessing Officer has categorically stated that satisfaction was recorded in the case of assessee i.e. respondent. And copy of the same kept in the file of searched person. Thus, how it is material to find out in whose case file out of three searched persons mentioned in the satisfaction note. Since no satisfaction recorded in the case of any of the searched person, there was no need to examine the same by the learned CIT(A). f. Neither the AO has given the details of the documents seized during the course of search on 11.03.2010 nor it was examined by the Commissioner appeal at the time of passing of the impugned order. Though in the It is an admitted fact that no satisfaction was recorded in the case of person searched and therefore it is immaterial that from whose premises documents/papers etc. have been found and seized. Even the learned Assessing Officer has not referred any of the seized material which can be said to be pertains to the other Printed from counselvise.com MA- 13& 14/AGr/2020 along with other cases M/s Shaurya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. 23 paragraph-1 of the assessment order the Ao mentioned that during the course of search action belonging to M/s Arth Real Development on 11.03.2010 certain papers/documents pertaining to the assessee have been seized vide Annexure to the Panchnama. However, in paragraph 12 of the assessment order the AO certain seized were mentioned papers/documents showing the payment of \"On Money\" as detailed in the assessment order of the K.S. City Pvt. Ltd. Though there is contradiction in the case of the AO, as in paragraph 1. AO is alleging that the documents were seized during the search action in the premises of M/s Arth Real Development, whereas in paragraph 12 the AO is contradicting and stating that the details is given in the assessment order of K.S. City However, this aspect has not been examined by the Commissioner while passing the impugned order. person (assessee). Not mentioning to of any seized material belongs to other on person (assessee) in the assessment order, itself considered as bad-in-law and required to be quashed in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mechmen (Supra). The learned CIT(A) had examined the relevant case records as mentioned in the impugned order at Para 5.1.4 with heading Decision. Moreso there would not have been different legal situation if the material so seized would have been mentioned in the satisfaction. What it important is that whether satisfaction is recorded or not in the case of searched person. As regards aspect of reference of assessment order of K. S. City P. Ltd., the same is having no relevance for recording of satisfaction being legal issue. g. The AO in the remand report has not given categorical reply in whose searched person file, the copy of satisfaction note kept out of the three As the Hon'ble Bench have observed that 'In our considered opinion, the satisfaction is required to be recorded first in the file of searched person satisfying that the document seized Printed from counselvise.com MA- 13& 14/AGr/2020 along with other cases M/s Shaurya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. 24 searched persons mentioned in the assessment order. In our considered opinion, the satisfaction is required to be recorded first in the file of searched person satisfying that the document seized during the search proceedings belongs to other person and thereafter the AO of search person is required to transmit the record to the AO of the other person who had jurisdiction over such other person. The AO of other person, is also required to record the satisfaction mentioning therein that the documents seized etc. belongs to the assessee (other person) and it would have bearing on the determination of the total income of other such person. during the search proceedings belongs to other person and thereafter the AO of search person is required to transmit the record to the AO of the other person who had jurisdiction over such other person. From the reading of the above it is clear that the Hon'ble Bench is of the view that the satisfaction has to be recorded in the case of searched person. In the instant case the learned Assessing Officer has failed to record satisfaction in the file/s of searched person and it is admitted fact which reveals from the remand report submitted by the learned Assessing Officer before the learned CIT(A). And thus, the decision of various courts including the Apex Court and CBDT circular applies. h. In the present case, nothing had been brought on record by the Ld CIT appeal after going through record, that these condition have been violated by the AO. In our view, it is fundamental premise of open justice, that factors, documents and reasons which have weighed in the mind of the CIT(A) should be recorded in the order. Merely recording of summary order is not sufficient. The details and the reasons for coming to the Your honour's kind attention is invited to the Para 5.1.3 of the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) wherein it is observed 'After carefully considering the submissions put forth on behalf of the appellant & the judgments of the cases relied upon, examining the relevant case records andperusing the facts of the case, the impugned assessment order, the remand report & the rejoinder thereon and other material evidences brought on record, this issue of appeal relating to the appellant has contested initiating and completion of assessment proceedings under section 153C is decided as Printed from counselvise.com MA- 13& 14/AGr/2020 along with other cases M/s Shaurya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. 25 conclusions which prompted the CIT(A) to quash the proceedings should be mentioned by the CIT(A) while passing the order. Nothing has been done in the present case. under'. In clause (iv) of Para 5.1.3 of the impugned order the learned CIT(A) has observed that 'In the present case though the AO has not recorded satisfaction in the case of person searched but has recorded the satisfaction in the case of the appellant Sourya Projects. Hence the next question which arises is whether the satisfaction recorded in the case of the appellant fulfills the requirement of law or not. Thereafter the learned CIT(A) has decided the case after considering relevant case laws and CBDT circular no.24/2015 dated 31.12.2015. Hence, the learned CIT (A) has decided the legal issue after considering each and every aspect of the case. 13.1 In view of the above submissions, the assessee in the concluding para no. 30 of its M.A. application submitted as under: ’30. It is also revealed from the order passed by the Hon'ble Bench that the appeals have been remand back to the file of the learned CIT Appeal for a fresh adjudication on merit as well as on legal ground. For the same it is directed to the CIT Appeal to decide the appeals in the light of the principles reproduced in the order and also in the light of the documents prepared by the learned Assessing Officer of the searched person and also of the other person (assessee). With all due respect, we invite kind attention of the Hon'ble Bench that which document they are referring which have been prepared by the Assessing Officer in the whole order of the Hon'ble Bench and even in the assessment order as well as in the synopsis and written submission filed by the learned D.R., there is no reference of any document prepared by the Assessing Officer of the searched person. There is only one document referred i.e. satisfaction note prepared by the Assessing Officer in the case of other person (assessee) and photocopy of which was kept in the file of person searched. Since no Printed from counselvise.com MA- 13& 14/AGr/2020 along with other cases M/s Shaurya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. 26 document has been prepared by the Assessing Officer in the case of searched person as mentioned in concluding observation and the same is mistake is apparent from records.” 13.2 In the above para, the assessee draws the attention of the Bench that as to which document the Tribunal was referring which have been prepared by the Assessing Officer in the whole order of the Hon'ble Bench and even in the assessment order as well as in the synopsis and written submission filed by the learned D.R., as there was no reference of any document prepared by the Assessing Officer of the searched person. It was further submitted that there is only one document referred i.e. satisfaction note prepared by the Assessing Officer in the case of other person (assessee) and photocopy of which was kept in the file of person searched and since no document has been prepared by the Assessing Officer in the case of searched person as mentioned in concluding observation and the same is mistake apparent from records. 14. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. As noted above, the Tribunal has given the reason in para no. 20 of its order as to why the Ld. CIT(A) was not correct in holding that assessment order is bad in law. In the said para, the Tribunal noted that it was not clear from the assessment order as well as from order of the Ld. CIT(A) before them, as to from whose possession/premises the certain documents belonging to the assessee were seized. Further it was noted by the Tribunal that it was not clear in whose case file, out of the three persons (M/s Arth Real Developers (M.P.) Pvt. Ltd., M/s Arth City Printed from counselvise.com MA- 13& 14/AGr/2020 along with other cases M/s Shaurya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. 27 Pvt. Ltd. And M/s K.S. Oils Ltd.) mentioned in the satisfaction note the satisfaction was recorded by the AO before initiating the proceeding u/s 153C against the assessee. The Tribunal also noted that these aspects were not examined by the ld. CIT(A) while passing the impugned order. 14.1. Therefore, it is seen that the Tribunal has given its reasons for holding that full facts regarding the recording of the satisfaction were not brought on record by the Ld. CIT(A) before holding the assessment order as bad in law on the ground that no satisfaction was recorded by the AO in the case of the searched person. Further, along with other facts as mentioned in para no.20 of its order as reproduced above in para no.13 of this order, the Tribunal has given its reasons as to why the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) in holding the assessment order as bad in law was not sustainable and needed to be remanded back to the ld. CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merit as well as on the legal grounds raised by the assessee and directed to decide the above said appeals in the light of the principles reproduced in the order and also in the light of the documents prepared by the assessing officer of the searched person and also of the other person(assessee). 14.2. The assessee submits that the ld. CIT(A) had examined the records and had come to a finding that no satisfaction was recorded by the AO in Printed from counselvise.com MA- 13& 14/AGr/2020 along with other cases M/s Shaurya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. 28 the case of the searched person and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) in view of the order of the Hon’ble jurisdictional Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mechman (supra) and other cases had validly held that the assessment order passed was bad in law, whereas, we note that the Tribunal had stated in para no.20(e) that it is not clear in whose case file, out of the three persons mentioned in the satisfaction note the satisfaction was recorded by the AO before initiating the proceeding u/s 153C against the assessee. These aspects have not been examined by the Commissioner while passing the impugned order. Further, the Tribunal has noted in para 20(g) that the AO in the remand report has not given a categorical reply in whose searched person file, the copy of the satisfaction note was kept out of the three searched persons mentioned in the Assessment order. In this regard, the submission of the assessee as to which document the Tribunal was referring which has been prepared by the Assessing Officer in the whole order of the Hon'ble Bench and even in the assessment order as well as in the synopsis and written submission filed by the learned D.R., as there is no reference of any document prepared by the Assessing Officer of the searched person and that there is only one document referred i.e. satisfaction note prepared by the Assessing Officer in the case of other person (assessee) and photocopy of which was kept in the file of person searched and further, since no document was prepared by the Assessing Officer in the case of searched person as mentioned in concluding observation Printed from counselvise.com MA- 13& 14/AGr/2020 along with other cases M/s Shaurya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. 29 of the Tribunal was mistake apparent from records has been very carefully considered. However, the assessee has not brought on record any tangible material to show that how its submission that no satisfaction was recorded by the AO in the cases of the searched person before initiating the proceedings in the case of the assessee so as to rebut the finding of the Tribunal in para 20(e) as reproduced above. Therefore, we hold that the mistake pointed out by the assessee in this regard cannot be termed as mistake apparent from record with the meaning of section 254(2) of the Act. The other grounds and submission made by the assessee in its M.A., if considered would amount to a review of the order of the Tribunal, which is not permissible under the provisions of the section 254(2) of the Act as the mistakes mentioned in its M.A. are not mistakes apparent from record. In view of the above facts, we are of the considered view that the M.A. filed by the assessee is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed. 14.3. In the result, the Miscellaneous Applications of the assessee in MA No.13 and 14/Agr/2020 in ITA No.220 & 221/Agr/2017 in the case of M/s Shaurya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2007-08 and 2008-09 are dismissed. Printed from counselvise.com MA- 13& 14/AGr/2020 along with other cases M/s Shaurya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. 30 15. Further, the Tribunal in para no.22 of its order, stated that the facts and issues in ITA No. 220/Agra/2017 are similar in pari materia in all the cases of the bunch of appeals involving common question of law and fact and therefore, their observation and findings in ITA No.220/Agra/2017, were applicable in all other cases of the bunch of appeals in mutatis mutandis. The relevant para -22 is reproduced as under:- 22. We have only reproduced the facts of the lead case in ITA No. 220/Agra/2017, for Assessment Year 2007-08. The facts and issues in ITA No.220/Agra/2017 are similar in peri materia in all the cases of the bunch of appeals involving common question of law and fact.. Therefore, our observation and findings in ITA No.220/Agra/2017, are applicable in all the other 15 cases of the bunch of appeals in mutatis mutandis. Accordingly, we are setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in all these appeals with a direction to decide afresh on merit as well as on legal grounds in accordance with law. 23. In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes.” 15.1. Likewise, in the above quantum appeals, the facts and submission in other Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessee as listed in the cause title are identical to MA Nos.13 and 14/Agr/2020 relating to ITA No.220 & 221/Agr/2017 in the case of M/s Shaurya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, our observation and findings in MA Nos.13 Printed from counselvise.com MA- 13& 14/AGr/2020 along with other cases M/s Shaurya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. 31 and 14/Agr/2020, are applicable in all the other 12 Miscellaneous Applications in mutatis mutandis. 16. In the result, all the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15th October, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- [SUNIL KUMAR SINGH] [BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 15.10.2025. Pooja /Shekhar Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi, Printed from counselvise.com "