ITO, CHENNAI V. P.R.Manickam, CHENNAI

MA 116/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8951 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 07-09-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 18-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: D ANAND
• Keywords: Block assessment

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI C BENCH, CHENNAI. BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P. NO. 116/MDS/2012 [IN I.T.(SS)A. NO. 04/MDS/2009] BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD : 01.04.85 TO 31.03.95 & 01 .04.95 TO 29.09.95 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD IV(2), CHENNAI 34. . VS. P.R. MANICKAM, NO. 32, AYYANAR STREET, EKKATUTHANGAL, CHENNAI 600 097. [PAN: AANPM1783B] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SAUMYAJIT DAS GUPTA, JCIT RESPONDENT BY : SHRI D. ANAND, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 07.09.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.09.2012 ORDER PER N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS A MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE REVE NUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 01.03.2012 PASSED IN I.T.(SS) A. NO. 04/MDS/2009 FOR THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD 01.04.1985 TO 29.09.199 5 2. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED BEFOR E US THAT THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IN THE MISCELLANEOUS PETIT ION IS THAT THE TRIBUNAL DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ON THE GROUND T HAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT RECORDED ANY SPECIFIC SATISFACTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT. ON THE CONTR ARY, THERE IS A M.P. M.P. M.P. M.P. NO. NO. NO. NO.116 116116 116/ // /M/ M/M/ M/12 1212 12 2 TYPEWRITTEN SATISFACTORY NOTE MADE ON 16.08.1996 AVAILABLE IN THE RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT YEARS 86-8 7 TO 96-97, WHICH READS AS UNDER: SHRI P.R. MANICKAM IS ONE OF THE SHAREHOLDERS AND DIRECTOR IN M/S. SAKTHI MAYIL FINANCE (P) LTD., NAMAKKAL. DURIN G THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE CASE OF SRI SAKTHI MAYIL FINANCE (P) LTD. REVEALED THAT SHRI P.R. MANICKAM H AS MADE INVESTMENTS IN THE ABOVE COMPANY IN THE FORM OF CAP ITAL CONTRIBUTION AND DEPOSITS OUT OF HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. I AM SATISFIED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BD ARE APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE FOR ASSESSING THE ABOVE REFERRED UNACC OUNTED INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE U/S. 158BD IS ISSUED. THEREFORE, THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE REC ORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 01.03. 2012 SHOULD BE RECTIFIED. 3. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMI TTED THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 158BD WAS THAT WHERE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO AN Y PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON WITH RESPECT TO WHOM SEARCH WAS MADE UNDER S ECTION 132, THEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER S UCH OTHER PERSON AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROCEED AGAINST SUCH OTHER PERSON AND PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER SHALL APPLY ACCORDINGLY. THUS, IT IS T HE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE PERSON SEARCHED, WHO HAS TO RECORD A SATISFACTION T HAT IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL, THE INCOME BELONGS TO SOME OTHER PERSON A ND THEREAFTER THE SEIZED M.P. M.P. M.P. M.P. NO. NO. NO. NO.116 116116 116/ // /M/ M/M/ M/12 1212 12 3 DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS ARE TO BE HANDED OVER TO TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE SATISFACTION NOTE REFERRED TO IN THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION BY THE DEPARTMENT IS THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE ASSESSEE SH RI P.R. MANICKAM AND NOT THAT OF THE ASSESSEE M/S. SRI SAKTHI MAYIL FINANCE (P) LTD., WHO WAS SEARCHED. THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT RECORDED ANY SPECIFIC SATISFACTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 158BD. HENCE, THERE WAS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH REQUIRES RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTIO N 254 OF THE ACT. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WHEN THE BENCH ASKED THE DR TH AT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON HAS TO RECORD A SATISFACTION THAT T HE SEIZED MATERIAL CONTAINS INCOME, WHICH IS ASSESSABLE IN THE HANDS O F THE OTHER PERSON AND THEREAFTER THE SEARCHED SEIZED MATERIAL HAS TO BE H ANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTH ER PERSON AND AS PER THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION OF THE REVENUE, THE SATISFAC TION NOTE RECORDED ON 16.08.1996 PLACED IN THE FILE OF THE ASSESSEE IS TH AT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI P.R. MANICKAM AND NOT OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER OF THE ASSESSEE, WHO WAS SEARCHED NAMELY M/S. SRI SAKTHI M AYIL FINANCE (P) LTD., AND THEREFORE THERE WAS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN HOLDING M.P. M.P. M.P. M.P. NO. NO. NO. NO.116 116116 116/ // /M/ M/M/ M/12 1212 12 4 THAT NO SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MANISH MAHESWARI REPORTED IN 2 89 ITR 341 (SC). TO THIS, THE DR VERY FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT NO SATISFACT ION NOTE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED ASSESSEE M/S. SRI SAKTHI MA YIL FINANCE (P) LTD., WHO WAS SEARCHED ON 29.09.1995 WAS RECORDED AND THEREFO RE THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE WAS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE DISMISS THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF H EARING ON FRIDAY, THE 7 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 AT CHENNAI. S D/ - SD/ - (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER (N.S.SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 07.09.2012 VM/- TO: THE ASSESSEE//A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.