SMT. MAMTA GUPTA, Jaipur V. ITO, WARD-6-3, Jaipur

MA 58/JPR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5600 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 31-07-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RUNI PAL JCIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: H M SINGHVI
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Document seized; Period of limitation; Procedural lapse; Assessment record; Block assessment; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 254(2); 158BC; 158BD; 22; 153C; 148; 132; 15

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH B, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKWO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;K NO ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM AND SHRI VIKRAM SING H YADAV, AM M.A. NO. 58/JP/2019 ( ARISING OUT OF VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 280/JP/2017) FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12. SMT. MAMTA GUPTA 29, KAILASHPURI, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(3), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AFCPG 4368 Q VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI H.M. SINGHVI (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SMT. RUNI PAL (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 18.10.2019. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07/11/2019. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM : BY WAY OF THIS APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKIN G RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKES IN THE ORDER DATED 22 ND MAY, 2019 OF THIS TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS STAT ED SIX MISTAKES IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS UNDER :- MISTAKE NO. 1. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE THE HONBLE ITA T, IT WAS ARGUED VERBALLY AS WELL IN WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS SUBMITTED T HAT SATISFACTION NOTE SO CALLED WAS PREPARED BY AO CENTRAL CIRCLE AFTER T RANSMITTING THE DOCUMENTS TO THE AO HAVING JURISDICTION. WHEREAS IT IS A PRE-REQUISITE CONDITION IN SEC. 153C. THAT BEFORE TRANSMITTING D OCUMENTS BY THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PARTY TO THE AO OF OTHER PERSON, SA TISFACTION NOTE HAS TO BE RECORDED BEFORE THAT. THE DOCUMENTS WERE SENT TO THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE WITH LETTER NO. 740 DATED 26/09/2014 (SEE. PB. PAGE NO. 39- 40 & ALSO PAGE NO. 1 OF THE DEPARTMENTAL PAPER BOOK ). IN THIS REGARD TRIBUNAL ALSO IGNORED THE CIRCULAR O F THE CBDT DT. 31/12/2015 (SEE PARA B PAPER NO. 5 OF THE FIRST SUB MISSIONS RELIED AND CITED DURING THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2 MA NO. 58/JP/2019 SMT. MAMTA GUPTA, JAIPUR. KINDLY REFER TO THE JUDGEMENT OF SUPREME COURT IN T HE CASE OF CALCUTTA KNITWEARS, LUDHIANA RELIED AND CITED BY THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. ON PAGE NO. 31 IN PARA 44 THE COURT HELD XXX XXX XXXXX ALSO REFERRED AND RELIED THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT JUD GEMENT IN THE CASE OF CHANDRA KANT BHAI AMRIT LAL THAKKAR (337 ITR 258 ) AND ITAT AMRITSAR IN THE CASE OF ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAL ANDHAR V. RIPPANDEEP THAKHAR DELIVERED ON 13/06/2016. NO DISCUSSION IN T HE ORDER. MISTAKE NO. 2. THERE WAS NO SATISFACTION NOTE OF AO TRANSMITTING T HE DOCUMENTS TO THE AO OF THE OTHER PERSON I.E. ASSESSEE. THE AO HA S NOT PROVIDED THE COPY OF SATISFACTION NOTE INSPITE OF THE REQUEST IN WRITING TO THE AO (SEE P.B. PAGE NO. 52). FURTHER ATTENTION IS HEREBY INVITED TO THE PAGE NO. 2 & 3. THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PARTY WAS ALSO RE QUIRED TO BE SATISFIED THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS DO NOT BELONG T O SEARCH PARTY BUT BELONG TO SOME OTHER PERSON. ALSO SEE PROFORMA FOR RECORDING SATISFACTION UNDER SEC. 153C OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R OF THE SEARCHED PARTY. IN THIS PROFORMA NO SATISFACTION WAS RECORD ED. THE WORDS I AM SATISFIED DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF THE CON CEPT OF SATISFACTION AS USED IN SEC. 153C OF THE SAID ACT. THE SATISFAC TION NOTE ITSELF MUST DISPLAY THE REASONS OR BASIS FOR THE CONCLUSION THA T THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON IS SATISFIED THAT TH E SEIZED DOCUMENT BELONG TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSON ( PEPSI CO. INDIA HOLDINGS (P) LTD. V. ACIT (370 ITR 295). EVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE AO HAS NOT MENTION ED ABOUT ANY SATISFACTION NOTE. ATTENTION IS HEREBY DRAWN TO PAG E 11 PARA (6) WHEREIN IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE TRANSFEREE AO DID NOT RECORD HIS SATISFACTION. MISTAKE NO. 3. THE TRIBUNAL HAS MADE AN INADVERTENT ERROR IN NOT C ONSIDERING THE PROVISION OF SEC. 153C(1) AS IT EXISTED AT THE RELE VANT TIME. THE SECTION REQUIRES THE SATISFACTION OF AO OF THE ASSE SSEE BEFORE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 153C. XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT THE ABSENCE OF SATISFA CTION NOTE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION (SEE PA GE 5 PARA A(II). MISTAKE NO. 4. 3 MA NO. 58/JP/2019 SMT. MAMTA GUPTA, JAIPUR. THE TRIBUNAL HAS MADE AN ADVERTANT ERROR IN NOT CON SIDERING THE ADDITIONAL SUBMISSION GIVEN ON 10/09/2018 RELATED T O GROUND NO. 1. IN PARA 1 OF THE SUBMISSION IT WAS CLEARLY MENTIONE D AND ATTENTION WAS DRAWN THAT THE ALLEGED PHOTO COPY OF THE DOCUMENT I N WHICH THE NAME OF THE SELLER AND THE PURCHASES WERE MENTIONED AND THE ALLEGED CONSIDERATION MENTIONED IN THE DOCUMENT/AGREEMENT I N QUESTION RELATES AND PERTAIN TO BOTH THE PARTIES. FOR THE PU RPOSE OF INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C OF THE ACT, THE SEIZED DOCUMEN T (PHOTOCOPY OF THE AGREEMENT) HAD TO BE SHOWN TO BELONG TO THE OTH ER PERSON (I.E. OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSON) ONLY. THE SAME ADD ITION HAS ALSO BEEN MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE SEARCHED PERSON (SELLER) VIZ. SHANTI NATH BUILDCON PVT. LIMITED. ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGEMENTS :- 1. PEPSI FOOD (P) LTD. V. ACIT (249 TAXMAN 493) 2. PEPSICO INDIA HOLDING (P) LTD. V. ACIT (370 ITR 295 ) 3. PCIT V. VINITA CHOURASIA (394 ITR 758) 4. CANYON FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. V. ITO (399 ITR 202) SUPREME COURT DISMISSED THE SLP FILED BY THE DEPART MENT. MISTAKE NO. 5. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT OF NOT PRODUCING THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS, ONLY PHOTOCOPIES WERE NOT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE INSPITE WRITTEN REQUEST TO THE AO. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT THE PHOTOCO PY IS DEAF AND DUMB DOCUMENT. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGEMENTS :- 1) H. SIDDIQI (DEAD) BY LRS V. A RAMA LINGAM (COPY OF JUDGEMENT AT PAGE NO. 76-77) 2) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. R.V. DURLABHJI (211 I TR 170) (SEE PAPER BOOK OF JUDGEMENT AT S. NO. 78 TO 85) MISTAKE NO. 6. ON PAGE 5 IN 7 TH LINE THE DATE WAS WRONGLY MENTIONED AS 16/09/2014 IN PLACE OF 26/09/2014. 2. AS REGARDS THE MISTAKE NO. 1, THE LD. A/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE VALIDITY OF INITIATION OF PROCEEDING S UNDER SECTION 153C ON THE GROUND THAT THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON HAS NOT RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION PRIOR TO THE 4 MA NO. 58/JP/2019 SMT. MAMTA GUPTA, JAIPUR. TRANSMISSION OF DOCUMENTS TO THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE . HE HAS POINTED OUT THAT IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. CALCUTTA KNITWEARS , 362 ITR 673 (SC) AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CHANDRAKANT BHAI AMRIT LAL THAKKAR, 337 ITR 258 (GUJ.). THE LD. A/R HAS FURTH ER SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE CBDT CIRCULAR DATED 31 ST DECEMBER, 2015. HOWEVER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT ADJUDICATED THE SAID POINT WHILE P ASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER BUT OTHER POINTS HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED AND DECIDED WHICH ARE NOT RELEVANT. AS REGARDS THE MISTAKE NO. 2, THE LD. A/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO SATISF ACTION BY THE AO WHO HAS TRANSMITTED THE DOCUMENTS TO THE AO OF T HE ASSESSEE AS DESPITE REPEATED DEMAND, THE AO HAS NOT PROVIDED THE COPY T O THE ASSESSEE. THUS THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT NO SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED BY THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. QUA THE THIRD MISTAKE, THE LD. A/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C(1 ) HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED AND APPRECIATED BY THE TRIBUNAL. SIMILARLY, FOR FOURTH MISTAKE , THE LD. A/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT ONLY A PHOTOCOPY OF THE DOCUMENT WAS SENT AND PROVIDED DURING THE SEARCH WHICH WAS CONSIDERED AS DOCUMENT BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE. AS REGARDS THE MISTAKE NO. 5, THE LD. A/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO T CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT NON-PRODUCTION OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENT, THE PHOTOCOPY CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS AN INCRIMINATING MATERIAL BELONGING T O THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS OTHERWISE DEAF AND DUMB DOCUMENT. THE 6 TH MISTAKE IS REGARDING TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE OF MENTIONING THE DATE AT PAGE 5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER . THUS THE LD. A/R HAS CONTENDED THAT THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 OF THE APPEAL 5 MA NO. 58/JP/2019 SMT. MAMTA GUPTA, JAIPUR. REQUIRE RECONSIDERATION AS THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT CON SIDERED THE CONTROVERSY INVOLVED AND CONSEQUENTLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER MAY BE RECALLED FOR PASSING A FRESH ORDER. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED TH AT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL ON MERITS AND ON EACH AND EVERY ISSUE RA ISED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE DECISION GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL ON TH E MERITS OF THE ISSUE CANNOT BE REVIEWED IN THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF ACT. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE MISTAKE NOS. 1 TO 5 ARE REGARDING THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF INITIATION OF PROCEEDIN GS UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT AND, THEREFORE, THESE ALL MISTAKES AS ALLEGED IN TH E MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION UNDER SERIAL NOS. 1 TO 5 ARE INTER-CONNECTED. WE NOTE THA T THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE IN PARA 6 AS UNDER :- 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD AR HAS REFERRED TO THE LETTER DATED 31/10/20 14 OF ITO, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR WHEREBY THE LD. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR WAS REQUESTED TO SEND THE SATISFACTION NOTE ALONGWITH SEIZED MATERIAL BELONGING TO THE ASS ESSEE IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. WE NOTE THAT THE NOTICE U/ S 153C OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 24/3/2015 I.E. SUBSEQUENT TO THE SAID LETTER DATED 30/10/2014 AND THEREFORE, THE A.O. WAS VERY MUCH CONSCIOUS ABOUT THE SATISFACTION NOTE OF THE A.O. OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AND HENCE THE SAID NOTICE ISSUED U/ S 153C OF THE ACT AFTER RECEIVING THE SATISFACTION NOTE IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. THE LD AR HAS ONLY RAISED A SUSPICION ABOUT THE NON -AVAILABILITY OF THE SATISFACTION NOTE, HOWEVER, THE LETTER DATED 30/10/2014 ITSELF S HOWS THAT THE A.O. HAS ENSURED THE SATISFACTION NOTE ALONGWITH THE DOCUMENTS BEFOR E ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT T HE LETTER DATED 26/09/2014 ITSELF IS A SATISFACTION OF THE A.O. OF THE SEARCHED PERSON W HEN THE SEIZED MATERIAL WAS TRANSMITTED TO THE A.O. OF THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, T HE A.O. TO AVOID ANY FURTHER DISPUTE ON THE ISSUE, HAS WRITTEN TO THE A.O. OF TH E SEARCHED PERSON TO SEND THE 6 MA NO. 58/JP/2019 SMT. MAMTA GUPTA, JAIPUR. SATISFACTION IN THE PRESCRIBED PERFORMA AS PER THE CDBT GUIDELINES DATED 31/03/2014. THE CBDT GUIDELINES DATED 31/3/2014 WER E ISSUED TO ENSURE THE A.O. SHOULD NOT COMMIT A PROCEDURAL LAPSE WHILE INITIATI NG THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, PROFORMA ATTACHED TO THE GUIDEL INES IS NOTHING BUT THE SERIAL NUMBERS OF CERTAIN DETAILS ARE GIVEN. IT IS NOT SUG GESTED IN THE GUIDELINES AS TO HOW THE A.O. SHOULD RECORD THE SATISFACTION. THEREFORE, EVEN IF THE SATISFACTION IS RECORDED BY THE A.O. WHICH IS REFLECTED IN THE LETT ER THROUGH WHICH SEIZED DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO THE PERSON OTHER THAN THE SE ARCHED PERSON IS TRANSMITTED TO THE A.O. HAVING JURISDICTION OF SUCH OTHER PERSO N THEN IT SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENT OF RECORDING OF SATISFACTION U/S 153C OF THE ACT. T HE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S CALCUTA KNITWEARS (SUPRA) (SUPR A) HAS CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE OF RECORDING OF SATISFACTION BY THE A.O. OF THE SEARCH ED PERSON BEFORE TRANSMITTING THE SEIZED MATERIAL BELONGING TO THE PERSON OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSON AND HAS HELD IN PARA 41 TO 44 AS UNDER: 41. WE WOULD CERTAINLY SAY THAT BEFORE INITIATING PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAS INI TIATED PROCEEDINGS FOR COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 158BC O F THE ACT SHOULD BE SATISFIED THAT THERE IS AN UNDISCLOSED INCOME WHICH HAS BEEN TRACED OUT WHEN A PERSON WAS SEARCHED UNDER SECTION 132 OR THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE REQUISITIONED UNDER SECTION 132A OF THE ACT. T HIS IS IN CONTRAST TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WHERE RECORDIN G OF REASONS IN WRITING ARE A SINE QUA NON. UNDER SECTION 158BD THE EXISTEN CE OF COGENT AND DEMONSTRATIVE MATERIAL IS GERMANE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICERS' SATISFACTION IN CONCLUDING THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS BELONG TO A PE RSON OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSON IS NECESSARY FOR INITIATION OF ACTI ON UNDER SECTION 158BD. THE BARE READING OF THE PROVISION INDICATES THAT TH E SATISFACTION NOTE COULD BE PREPARED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER EITHER AT THE TIME OF INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT OF A SEARC HED PERSON UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT OR DURING THE STAGE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT AFTER COMPLETION OF THE ASSES SMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT PREPARE THE SATISFACTION NOTE TO THE EFFECT THAT THERE EXISTS INCOME TAX BELONGING TO ANY PERSON OTHER THAN THE S EARCHED PERSON IN RESPECT OF WHOM A SEARCH WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 132 OR REQUISITION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE MADE UNDER SECTION 132A OF T HE ACT. THE LANGUAGE OF THE PROVISION IS CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS. THE LEGI SLATURE HAS NOT IMPOSED ANY EMBARGO ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THE STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS DURING WHICH THE SATISFACTION IS TO BE REACHED AND RECORDED IN RESPECT OF THE PERSON OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSON. 42. FURTHER, SECTION 158BE(2)(B) ONLY PROVIDES FOR THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR COMPLETION OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 158BD IN CASE OF THE PERSON OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSON AS TWO YEARS FROM TH E END OF THE MONTH IN 7 MA NO. 58/JP/2019 SMT. MAMTA GUPTA, JAIPUR. WHICH THE NOTICE UNDER THIS CHAPTER WAS SERVED ON S UCH OTHER PERSON IN RESPECT OF SEARCH CARRIED ON AFTER 01.01.1997. THE SAID SECTION DOES NEITHER PROVIDES FOR NOR IMPOSES ANY RESTRICTIONS OR CONDIT IONS ON THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR PREPARATION THE SATISFACTION NOTE UN DER SECTION 158BD AND CONSEQUENT ISSUANCE OF NOTICE TO THE OTHER PERSON. 43. IN THE LEAD CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD PRE PARED A SATISFACTION NOTE ON 15.07.2005 THOUGH THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF A SEARCHED PERSON, NAMELY, S.K. BHATIA WERE COMPLETED ON 30.03 .2005. AS WE HAVE ALREADY NOTICED, THE TRIBUNAL AND THE HIGH COURT AR E OF THE OPINION THAT SINCE THE SATISFACTION NOTE WAS PREPARED AFTER THE PROCEEDINGS WERE COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 15 8BC OF THE ACT WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BD READ WI TH SECTION 158BE(2)(B) AND THEREFORE, HAVE DISMISSED THE CASE OF THE REVEN UE. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE REASONING OF THE LEARNED JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT IS CONTRARY TO THE PLAIN AND SIMPLE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED BY THE LEGIS LATURE UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT WHICH CLEARLY PROVIDES ADEQUATE FL EXIBILITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECORDING THE SATISFACTION NOTE AFTER T HE COMPLETION OF PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF THE SEARCHED PERSON UNDER SECTION 158BC. FURTHER, THE INTERPRETATION PLACED BY THE COURTS BE LOW BY READING INTO THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF SECTION 158BE(2)(B) SUCH AS TO EX TEND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION TO RECORDING OF SATISFACTION NOTE WOULD RUN COUNTER TO THE AVOWED OBJECT OF INTRODUCTION OF CHAPTER TO PROVIDE FOR CO ST-EFFECTIVE, EFFICIENT AND EXPEDITIOUS COMPLETION OF SEARCH ASSESSMENTS AND AV OIDING OR REDUCING LONG DRAWN PROCEEDINGS. 44. IN THE RESULT, WE HOLD THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT A SATISFACTION NOTE IS SINE QUA NON AND MUST BE PREPA RED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE HE TRANSMITS THE RECORDS TO THE OTHE R ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAS JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON. THE SATISF ACTION NOTE COULD BE PREPARED AT EITHER OF THE FOLLOWING STAGES: (A) AT THE TIME OF OR ALONG WITH THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE SEARCHED PERSON UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT; (B) ALONG WITH THE ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT; AND (C) IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT OF THE SEA RCHED PERSON. THUS, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT CLEARLY PROVIDES AN ADEQUATE FLEXIBILITY TO THE A.O. FOR RECORDING SATISFACTION NOTE AND THE SAME COULD BE PREPARED BY THE A.O. EITHER AT THE TIME OF INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS FOR COMPLETION OF THE AS SESSMENT OF THE SEARCHED PERSONS OR DURING THE STAGE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE SATISFACTION CAN BE RECORDED EVEN AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. THEREFORE, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS NOT IMPOSED ANY EMBARGO ON THE A.O. IN RESPECT OF STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS DURI NG WHICH THE SATISFACTION IS TO BE REACHED AND RECORDED IN RESPECT OF THE PERSON OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSONS. IN THE CASE IN HAND, ONCE THE A.O. OF THE SEARCHED PER SON HAS COMMUNICATED THE 8 MA NO. 58/JP/2019 SMT. MAMTA GUPTA, JAIPUR. INFORMATION ALONGWITH THE SEIZED MATERIAL WHICH CLE ARLY MANIFESTS THE SATISFACTION OF THE A.O. OF THE SEARCHED PERSON THEN THE REQUIREMEN T OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C ARE SATISFIED. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THIS I SSUE IN PARA 4.5 AS UNDER: 4.5. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ST ATEMENT OF FACTS, GROUNDS OF APPEAL, WRITTEN SUBMISSION, REMAND REPOR T, REJOINDER AND THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLAN T CAREFULLY. AS FAR AS VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 153C READ WITH SECTION 143(3) IS CONCERNED THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN PURSUANCE OF NOTICE DATED 24.03.2015 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 153C. THE COP Y OF SEIZED MATERIAL ALONGWITH THE SATISFACTION NOTE WAS SENT BY ACIT, C ENTER CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR ON 26.09.2014. AS THE SATISFACTION NOTE WAS NOT IN THE PERFORMA PRESCRIBED BY THE CBDT VIDE INSTRUCTION F. NO. 299 /128/2013-DIR( INV.III)/1547 DATED 31.03.2014 THEREFORE SATISFACTION NOTE IN THE PRESC RIBED PROFORMA WAS AGAIN SENT BY THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR TO THE A O. THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C WAS ISSUED ONLY AFTER RECEIPT OF SATISFACTION NOTE DATED 22.01.2015. THUS, THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT THAT NO SATISFA CTION NOTE WAS RECEIVED BY THE AO ALONGWITH THE COPY OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL IS NOT FOUND TO BE CORRECT. THE COPY OF SEIZED MATERIAL WAS RECEIVED B Y THE AO ALONGWITH THE SATISFACTION NOTE ONLY AND THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C WAS ISSUED BY THE AO ONLY AFTER RECEIPT OF SATISFACTION NOTE ALOGNWIT H COPY OF SEIZED MATERIAL. THEREFORE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT INITIAT ION OF THE PROCEEDINGS, UNDER SECTION 153C AND MAKING OF THE ASSESSMENT UND ER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 153C BY THE AO IN THE CASE OF THE APPE LLANT WAS VALID AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. ACCORDINGLY, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AS DISCUSSED ABOV E AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS AND BINDING PRECEDENTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C OF THE ACT. HENCE, WE UPHOLD T HE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) QUA THIS ISSUE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPRE ME COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. CALCUTTA KNITWEARS (SUPRA), THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE FLEXIBILITY TO THE AO FOR RECOR DING SATISFACTION NOTE AND THE SAME COULD BE PREPARED BY THE AO EITHER AT THE TIME OF PROCEEDINGS FOR COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT OF THE SEARCHED PERSON OR DURING THE STAGE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR AFTER COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. THUS THE TRIBUNAL HAVING DISCUSSED THE FLE XIBILITY FOR RECORDING THE 9 MA NO. 58/JP/2019 SMT. MAMTA GUPTA, JAIPUR. SATISFACTION BY THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON HAS R EJECTED THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE. NOW THE LD. A/R HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE PRECISE OBJECTION REGARDING THE RECORDING OF SATISFACTION B Y THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON PRIOR TO TRANSMISSION OF THE DOCUMENTS TO THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER WAS NOT CONSIDERED AND ADJUDIC ATED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHEREAS THE SAME HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. CALCUTTA KNITWEARS (SUPRA) IN PARA 44 REPRODUCED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THUS DESPITE THE REPRODUCTION OF THE SAID JUDGMENT OF TH E HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND SPECIFIC OBSERVATION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT I N PARA 44, THIS ISSUE WAS LEFT UNATTENDED AND UN-ADJUDICATED. THEREFORE, TO THE EX TENT OF NON-ADJUDICATION OF THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT OF THE MATTER BY THE TRIBUNAL WHI LE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER AMOUNTS TO AN APPARENT MISTAKE ON RECORD WHICH REQU IRES TO BE RECTIFIED. SINCE THIS ISSUE REQUIRES VERIFICATION OF THE ASSESSMENT RECOR D TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED BY THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON PRIOR TO TRANSMISSION OF THE DOCUMENTS TO THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE FOR INITIAT ION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT OR NOT, THEREFORE, THE ADJUDICATION OF THIS ISSUE REQUIRES VERIFICATION OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE PR ODUCED BY THE AO. HENCE TO THAT EXTENT, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THERE IS AN APPA RENT MISTAKE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER FOR NOT ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE OF RECORDING THE SAT ISFACTION BY THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON PRIOR TO TRANSMISSION OF THE DOCUMENTS TO TH E AO OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE OTHER CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE DO NOT MAKE OUT THE CASE OF APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS THOSE WER E ALREADY CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 10 MA NO. 58/JP/2019 SMT. MAMTA GUPTA, JAIPUR. 6. AS REGARDS THE MISTAKE NO. 6 , WE FIND THAT THERE IS A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN PARA 5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHERE THE TRIBUNAL HAS STATED THAT THE AO HAS RECEIVED THE DOCUMENTS FROM THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON VIDE LETTER DATED 16.09.2014 WHEREAS THE CORRECT DATE IS 26.09.2014. THEREFORE, THE TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN MENTIONING THE DATE IS RECTIFIED AND THE D ATE OF COMMUNICATION LETTER TO BE READ AS 26.09.2014. 7. SINCE THE ISSUE RAISED IN MISTAKE NOS. 1 TO 5 RE GARDING THE RECORDING OF SATISFACTION PRIOR TO TRANSMISSION OF THE DOCUMENTS IS REQUIRED TO BE ADJUDICATED AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD AND IT GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER, THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND FINDING GIVEN ON THIS ISSUE IN PARA 6 IS RECALLED FOR FRESH HEARING AND ADJUDICATION. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO BE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 14 TH NOVEMBER, 2019. THE PARTIES BE INFORMED AND THE L D. D/R IS DIRECTED TO PRODUCE THE ASSESSMENT RECORD ON THE DATE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF INITIATION OF P ROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. 8. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07/11/2 019. SD/- SD/- ( FOE FLAG ;KNO ) ( FOT; IKY JKWO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV ) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 07/11/2019. DAS/ 11 MA NO. 58/JP/2019 SMT. MAMTA GUPTA, JAIPUR. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- SMT. MAMTA GUPTA, JAIPUR. 2. THE RESPONDENT THE ITO WARD 6(3), JAIPUR. 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (MA NO. 58/JP/2019) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR 12 MA NO. 58/JP/2019 SMT. MAMTA GUPTA, JAIPUR.