Bharat Ginning & Pressing Factory, Bharuch V. The Income Tax Officer, Central Circle, Ward-1, Baroda

MA 59/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7716 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 18-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 17-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: NIMESH VYAWALA
• Keywords: Block assessment
• Section: 153A; 80IA; 254(2); 158BC; 153; 158BD

Judgement Text

, B IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MISC. APPLICATION NO.56/AHD/2016 IN MISC. APPLICATION NO.138/AHD/2013 IN ./ ITA NO.2404/AHD/2007 / ASSTT.YEAR: 1999-2000] AND MISC.APPLICATION NO.57 TO 60/AHD/2016 IN MISC. APPLICATION NOS.143 TO 146/AHD/2013 IN ITA NO.2405, 2406, 2407 AND 2408/AHD/2007 [ASSTT.YEARS : 2000-01, 2002-03, 2003-04 AND 2004-0 5 BHARAT GINNING & PRESSING FACTORY BEHIND RAILWAY STATION, PALEJ, BHARUCH. PAN : AABFB 9254 G VS ITO, CENT.WARD - 1 BARODA. ( APPLICANT ) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIMESH VYAWALA, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI L.P.JAIN, SR.DR WITH SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH, ITO / DATE OF HEARING : 17/01/2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29/01/2020 *+/ O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT: THE PRESENT MISC. APPLICATIONS ARE DIRECTED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THEIR RESPECTIVE APPEALS AS MENTIONED I N THE TITLE CAUSE. MA NO.56/AHD/2016 (5 MAS.) BHARAT GINNING & PROCESSING FACTORY VS.ITO 2 2. BEFORE ADVERTING TO THE FACTS PLEADED IN THE APP LICATION, WE WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THAT EARLIER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED MISC. APPLICATIONS BEARING NOS.138 AND 143 TO 146/AHD/2013 POINTING OU T APPARENT ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 12.4.2013. THES E MAS. OF THE ASSESSEE WERE HEARD BY THE TRIBUNAL ON 18.3.2016. THE TRIBUNAL HAS DISMISSED ALL THESE APPLICATIONS WITH LIBERTY TO TH E ASSESSEE TO FILE FRESH. THE REASON FOR SUCH DISMISSAL OF THE APPLICATION WA S THAT THE APPLICATIONS WERE RUNNING INTO 50 PAGES; AND APART FROM THESE MAS., THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED PAPER BOOK CONTAINING 26 DEC ISIONS RUNNING INTO 300 PAGES. THE TRIBUNAL WAS OF THE VIEW THAT FOR E XPLAINING APPARENT ERROR IN AN ORDER RUNNING INTO 15 PAGES, THE ASSESS EE HAS DEVOTED 50 PAGES IN THE APPLICATION. THIS SHOWS THAT THESE AP PLICATIONS ARE VAGUE AND MISLEADING. THEREFORE, THESE APPLICATIONS WERE DISMISSED WITH LIBERTY TO FILE FRESH. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE H AS FILED FRESH MAS. IN BRIEF, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE AS SESSMENT ORDERS IN THIS CASE HAVE BEEN PASSED UNDER SECTION 153C OF TH E ACT. FOR TAKING COGNIZANCE UNDER SECTION 153C IT IS MANDATORY THAT THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON SHOULD RECORD A SATISFACTION NOTE E XHIBITING FACT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH CERTAIN DOCUMENTS BELON GED TO OTHER PERSONS WERE FOUND AND PERUSAL OF THESE DOCUMENTS W OULD INDICATE THAT TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSME NT. AFTER THIS SATISFACTION NOTE, HE WOULD TRANSMIT RECORD ALONG W ITH THESE DOCUMENTS TO THE AO WHO HAS JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERS ONS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, NO SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED BY THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THIS PLEA DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, BUT WAS REJECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL ON THE GROUND THAT THERE W ERE NO REQUIREMENT TO RECORD SUCH SATISFACTION. THIS VIEW IS CONTRARY TO A LARGE NUMBER OF DECISIONS REFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH HAS BEEN DULY NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THUS, THE TRIBUNAL HAS COMMITTED APPAREN T ERROR. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS, HE RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SAURASHTRA KUTCH STOC K EXCHANGE LTD., MA NO.56/AHD/2016 (5 MAS.) BHARAT GINNING & PROCESSING FACTORY VS.ITO 3 REPORTED IN 262 ITR 146 WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY TH E HONBLE SUPREME COURT REPORTED IN 305 ITR 227. THUS, ACCORDING TO THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, IF THE TRIBUNAL FAILED TO TAKE COGNIZ ANCE OF THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, THEN IT WOULD BE CONSTRUED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS COMMITTED AN APPARE NT ERROR. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT IN T HE PRESENT CASE THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS OF THE SEARCHED P ERSONS WAS COMMON, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT TO RECORD ANY S ATISFACTION FOR TAKING COGNIZANCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT COMMITTED ANY APPARENT ERROR. 4. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GO NE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. AT THIS STAGE, BEFORE WE EMBARK U PON AN INQUIRY ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, IN ORDER TO FIND OUT WHE THER ANY APPARENT ERROR WAS COMMITTED BY THE TRIBUNAL OR NOT WHILE PA SSING IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.3.2016, WE THINK IT APPROPRIATE TO BEAR IN MIND CERTAIN BASIC PRINCIPLES FOR EXERCISING POWERS CONTEMPLATED IN SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THERE ARE SERIES OF DECISIONS AT THE END OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AS WELL AS HONBLE HIGH COURT EXPOUNDING SCOPE OF EXERCISING POWERS UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE AC T. WE DO NOT DEEM IT NECESSARY TO RECITE AND RECAPITULATE ALL OF THEM , BUT SUFFICE TO SAY THAT CORE OF ALL THESE AUTHORITATIVE PRONOUNCEMENTS IS T HAT POWER FOR RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT CAN B E EXERCISED ONLY WHEN MISTAKE, WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED, IS AN OBV IOUS AND PATENT MISTAKE, WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AND NOT A MISTAKE, WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE ESTABLISHED BY ARGUMENTS AND LONG DR AWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS, ON WHICH THERE MAY CONCEIVABLY BE TWO OPINIONS. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE TRIBUNAL HAS PASS ED FOLLOWING INTERIM ORDER: 06.12.2019 PRESENT : SHRI NIMESH VAYAWALA, AR MA NO.56/AHD/2016 (5 MAS.) BHARAT GINNING & PROCESSING FACTORY VS.ITO 4 SHRI L.J. JAIN, SR.DR THE LD.DR HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT STATING THEREIN THAT INFORMATION CALLED FOR VIDE ORDER DATED 4.10.2 019 IS YET TO BE RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HA ND, RAISED OBJECTION ON THE ADJOURNMENT, AND SUBMITTED THAT TH ESE MAS. WERE FILED WAY BACK IN 2016. THE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN SE EKING ADJOURNMENT TIME AND AGAIN. THE DEPARTMENT WAS DIR ECTED TO PRODUCE SATISFACTION NOTE, IF ANY, RECORDED IN THE CASE OF SEARCHED PERSON FOR TAKING ACTION AGAINST THE PRESENT ASSESS EE UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT AS WELL AS ANY MATERIAL BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE AS STATED FOUND AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ORDER SHEET DATED 4.10.2019 READS AS UNDER: 04.10.2019 PRESENT ASSESSEE BY: SHRI NIMESH VAYAWA LA, AR REVENUE BY: SHRI JAMESH KURIAN, SR.DR THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE VERY OUTSET, SUBMITTED THAT WHILE UPHOLDING TAKING COGNIZANCE UNDER SECTION 153C AT THE END OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED THAT WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS COMMON FOR THE SEARCHED PERSON AND ANY OTHER PERSON, THEN NO SEPARATE SATISFACTION IS REQUIRED TO BE RECORDED. T HIS FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL IS CONTRARY TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT DEPARTMENT IS REQUIRED TO PRODUCE COPY OF THE SATISFACTION, IF ANY, RECORDED IN THE CASE OF SEARC HED PERSON. THE DEPARTMENT IS FURTHER REQUIRED TO PRODUCE ANY MATERIAL BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE, IF FOUND, AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN TAKING ADJOURNMENTS FOR A QUITE SUFFICIENT TIME; THEREFORE, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PRODUCE THESE DETAILS BY NEXT DATE OF HEARING. THE HEARING IS ADJOURNED TO 6 TH DECEMBER 2019. COPY OF THIS ORDER BE SUPPLIED TO BOTH THE PARTIES. 3. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT ALL THE MATERIAL WAS COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, AND TH ESE ARE ALREADY BEING TAKEN ON RECORD DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL H EARING. FOR THIS PURPOSE, HE BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE COPY OF THE LETTE R DATED 18.5.2012 WHEREIN DY.CIT, BHARUCH CIRCLE, SHRI R.V. PATEL INF ORMED YAKUB AHMED THAT NO SATISFACTION NOTE IS AVAILABLE IN THE RECORD OF YAKUB MA NO.56/AHD/2016 (5 MAS.) BHARAT GINNING & PROCESSING FACTORY VS.ITO 5 AHMED COLDRINK FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C TO BHARAT GINNING & PRESSING FACTORY. ON THE STRENGTH OF THE SE DETAILS HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO NEED TO ADJOURN THE HEAR ING. 4. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED CONTENTIONS OF THE LD.CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, AT THIS STAGE WITHOUT GETTING T HESE DETAILS VERIFIED FROM THE REVENUE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO A CCEPT THEM ON ITS FACE, BECAUSE IF THESE DETAILS WERE AVAILABLE, DURI NG THE APPEAL HEARING, THEY COULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED ON THAT TI ME ALSO. IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 254(2) OUR JURISDICTION I S VERY LIMITED. THEREFORE, WE GRANT SOME MORE TIME TO THE REVENUE, AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REMAIN PRESENT ON THE DATE OF NEXT HEARING WITH RELEVANT RECORD. COPY OF THIS ORDER BE SUPPLIED TO ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER FOR ENSURING THE COMPLIANCE. 5. MATTER NOW STANDS ADJOURNED TO 17 TH JANUARY, 2020. SD/- SD/- (AM) (JM) WASEEM AHMED RAJPAL YADAV 5. IN RESPONSE TO THIS QUERY, THE AO APPEARED IN PE RSON, AND FILED A COPY OF LETTER DATED 14.1.2020. HE ADMITTED THAT D URING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF SEARCHED PERS ON, NO SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED. HOWEVER, HE POINTED OUT THAT REASONS WERE RECORDED FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. HE PLACED COPY OF REASONS DATED 11.10.20 04 ALONG WITH LETTER DATED 14.1.2020. A CATEGORICAL STATEMENT WA S MADE BY THE AO AS WELL AS OF THE LD.DR THAT NO SATISFACTION NOTE W AS RECORDED AND AVAILABLE IN THE RECORD OF SEARCHED PERSONS. WE AL SO DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO TAKE NOTE OF THE FINDING OF THE TRIB UNAL IN THE ORDER DATED 17.4.2013 ON THIS RESPECT. IT READS AS UNDER: . FURTHER, HE RELIED UPON THE CASE OF ACIT, CIRCLE-1, GWALIOR VS. M/S GLOBAL ESTATE IN ITA NOS. 144 TO 149/AGRA/2011 FOR A.Y. 2003-04 MA NO.56/AHD/2016 (5 MAS.) BHARAT GINNING & PROCESSING FACTORY VS.ITO 6 TO 2008-09, ORDER DATED 30.11.2012, WHEREIN THE ISS UE WAS NO SATISFACTION RECORDED BY THE A.O. OF THE SEARCH PAR TY. AGAIN, HE FURTHER RELIED UPON IN CASE OF AKIL GULAMALI SOMJI VS. ITO, PUNE [2012] 20 TAXMANN.COM 380 (PUNE), WHEREIN THE ISSUE OF PRIOR APPROVAL OF ACIT/ JCIT IS REQUIRED TO PASS THE ORDE R U/S.153C R.W.S. 153A OF THE IT ACT. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER REL IED UPON FOLLOWING CASES: I). CIT VS. M/S GAMBHIR SILK MILLS IN TAX APPEAL NO . 1493 OF 2010 - WHEREIN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING U/S. 153C WAS COMPL ETED AND DOCUMENTS NOT WRITTEN BY THE ASSESSEE. HELD, PROCEE DING INVALID. II. CIT VS. MEGHMANI ORGANICS LIMITED IN TAX AP PEAL NOS. 2077, 2078 TO 2086 OF 2009 - WHEREIN DOCUMENTS NOT WRITTE N BY THE ASSESSEE. THE PROCEEDING HELD INVALID. III. CIT VS. JYOTINDRA V VASA IN TAX APPEAL NO. 99 OF 2011- WHEREIN PROCEEDING U/S. 153C HELD INVALID ON THE GR OUND THAT NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER VALUABLES WERE FOUND BEL ONGING TO THE ASSESSEE. IV. VIJAYBHAI N. CHANDRANI VS. ACIT [2011] 333 ITR 436 (GUJ.) - WHEREIN PROCEEDING U/S. 153C IS HELD INVALID ON THE BASIS OF ASSESSEE'S NAME REFERRED IN DIFFERENT COLUMNS. V. SHRI ALKESH M. PATEL VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1( 1), AHMADABAD IN IT(SS)A NOS. 144 TO 146/AHD/2010 & C.O. NOS. 90, 91, 105/AHD/2010 - WHEREIN CO-ORDINATE 'D' BENCH, AHMED ABAD HELD THAT DIARY BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND, THE REFORE, INITIATION PROCEEDING U/S.153C IS HELD VALID. VI. DCIT, CC-1(2), AHMADABAD VS. SHRI ABHALBHAI ARJ ANBHAI JADEJA IN ITA NOS. 174, 175 & 176/AHD/2009 FOR A.Y. 03-04, 04- 05 & 05-06 - WHEREIN CO- ORDINATE 'B' BENCH, AHMADA BAD HELD THAT PROCEEDING U/S. 153C IS HELD VALID. VII. VISHNU ANANT MAHAJAN VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 5, BAROD A - WHEREIN SALARY AND INTEREST INCOME OF THE PARTNER IS HELD B USINESS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF PARTNER. VIII. CIT VS. LATE J. CHAN DRASEKAR (HUF) [2011] 338 ITR 61 (MAD) - WHEREIN PROCEEDING U/S. 1 53C IS HELD INVALID AS THE REVENUE DO NOT POSSESS ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT MATERIALS WERE AVAILABLE AT THE HAND OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER AT THE TIME OF ISSUING NOTICE. BESIDES ABOVE, NUMBER O F CASES HAVE ALSO BEEN REFERRED BY THE LD. A.R. THEREFORE, HE RE QUESTED THAT THE PROCEEDING INITIATED U/S.153C IS TO BE DECLARED NULL AND VOID. AT THE OUTSET, LD. CIT D.R. ARGUED THAT BOTH THE LO WER AUTHORITIES MA NO.56/AHD/2016 (5 MAS.) BHARAT GINNING & PROCESSING FACTORY VS.ITO 7 WERE RIGHT IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION U/S.153C OF THE IT ACT AS DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE RESIDENCE PREMIS ES OF SHRI YAKUB A. COLDDRINK, BOOKS OF THE FIRM AS PER ANNEXU RE A/11 & A/12 WERE FOUND AND SEIZED WHICH WERE ADMITTED BY T HE PARTNER BELONGING TO THE APPELLANT FIRM IN HIS STATEMENT DA TED 29.08.2003 RECORDED U/S. 132(4) OF THE IT ACT. THUS, HE PRAYED TO CONFIRM THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE SEARCH OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE RESIDENCE AS WELL AS BUSINESS PREMISES OF SHRI YAKUB A. COLDD RINK WHERE FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE FIRM AS PER ANNEXU RE A/11 & A/12 AND LOOSE PAPER AS PER ANNEXURE-3 WERE FOUND A ND SEIZED. AS PER SECTION 153C, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BELONGING TO THE OTHER PERSON IS REQUIRED TO BE FOUND AND SEIZED AT THE PR EMISES OF THE SEARCH TOOK PLACE WHERE ASSESSMENT U/S. 153A HAS BE EN MADE I.E. SEARCHED PARTY. FOR INITIATING PROCEEDING U/S. 153C, IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THESE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT SHOULD BE INC RIMINATING. WHEN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT FOUND AND SE IZED FROM THE SEARCH PLACE OF THE PARTNER OF THE FIRM, THE A.O. I S FULLY EMPOWERED TO INITIATE PROCEEDING U/S. 153C OF THE I T ACT AGAINST THE FIRM I.E. OTHER PERSON. THE A.O. OF THE BOTH PA RTNERS AS WELL AS FIRM WAS SAME. THEREFORE, NO SEPARATE SATISFACTION IS REQUIRED TO BE RECORDED AS HELD IN CASE OF CIT VS. PANCHAJANYAM MANAGEMENT AGENCIES & SERVICES [2011] 333 ITR 281 (KER.), WHER EIN IT WAS HELD THAT SEARCH IN PREMISES OF THE MANAGING PARTNE R - SAME A.O. HAVING JURISDICTION OVER MANAGING PARTNER AND FIRM - NOTICE TO FIRM U/S.158 BD R.W.S. 158BC, THE A.O. NEED NOT TO RECORD REASONS - BLOCK ASSESSMENT OF FIRM IS VALID. THE CA SE LAWS CITED BY THE APPELLANT ARE SQUARELY NOT APPLICABLE AS IN CAS E OF ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA), ALREADY SCR UTINY ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE AND NO INCRIMINATING DOCUM ENTS WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THEREFORE, PROCE EDING U/S.153A WAS INVALID. THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE AP PELLANT IN CASE OF ACIT VS. M/S PRATIBHA INDUSTRIES LTD. (SUPRA) IS TOTALLY ON DIFFERENT FOOTING WHICH WAS ON APPORTIONMENT OF THE DISCLOSURE BETWEEN 80IA UNIT OR NON 80IA UNIT. IN ASSESSEE'S C ASE, IN ALL THE YEARS, NO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE A.O. THE RETURN OF THE APPELLANT HAD BEEN PROCESS U/S. 143 ( 1) (A) AND IT WAS HELD BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN CASE OF ACIT VS. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS PVT. LTD, 291 ITR 500 (SC), I NTIMATION U/S.143(1)(A) CANNOT BE TREATED TO BE AN ORDER OF A SSESSMENT AND THERE BEING NO ASSESSMENT U/S.143(1)(A). THE SECTIO N 153D HAS BEEN AMENDED W.E.F. 01.06.2007 WHEREAS THE LD. A.O. HAS PASSED ORDERS U/S. 153C IN ALL THE YEARS ON 24/03/2006. TH US, NO APPROVAL OF JCIT/ACIT IS REQUIRED. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS MA NO.56/AHD/2016 (5 MAS.) BHARAT GINNING & PROCESSING FACTORY VS.ITO 8 AND LEGAL POSITION ON THIS ISSUE, WE HAVE CONSIDERE D VIEW THAT CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE A. O. U/S.153 OF THE IT ACT. THUS, THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IN ALL THE YEARS IS DISMISSED. 6. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CALCUTTA KNITWEARS, REPORTED 362 ITR 673 (SC) HAS CONSIDERED PROCEDURE REQUIRED TO BE FOLLOWED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER S ECTION 158BD OF THE ACT. THE CONDITIONS ENUMERATED IN SECTION 158BD A RE IDENTICAL TO SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. IN OTHER WORDS, SECTION 1 53C IS SUCCESSOR OF SECTION 158BD. IN BOTH THESE SECTIONS FUNDAMENTAL REQUIREMENT IS, BEFORE TAKING COGNIZANCE OF SECTION 153C, A SATISFA CTION NOTE IS REQUIRED TO BE RECORDED BY THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON EXH IBITING THE FACT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH CERTAIN INCRIMINATING M ATERIAL BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE FOUND AND SEIZED, WHO REVEALS ESCAPEME NT OF TAXABLE INCOME. AFTER RECORDING THE SATISFACTION, RECORD W OULD BE TRANSMITTED TO THE AO OF SUCH OTHER PERSON WHO HAS TERRITORIAL JUR ISDICTION OVER OTHER PERSON. HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CALCU TTA KNITEWEAR (SUPRA) LAID DOWN WHEN THIS SATISFACTION COULD BE R ECORDED. IT HAS BEEN SUMMARIZED IN PARAGRAPH-44 OF THE JUDGMENT WHICH RE ADS AS UNDER: 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 PREPARED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE HE TRANSMI TS THE RECORDS TO THE OTHER ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAS JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON. THE SATISFACTION 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 SECTI ON 158BC OF THE ACT; (B) ALONG WITH THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT; AND (C) IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 158BC OF TH E ACT OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. THUS, IT IS MANDATORY TO RECORD SATISFACTION BY THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON BEFORE TRANSMITTING RECORD TO THE AO OF OTHE R PERSONS TO WHOM DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH; C IRCUMSTANCES AT WHICH THIS SATISFACTION COULD BE RECORDED HAS ALSO BEEN CONTEMPLATED BY MA NO.56/AHD/2016 (5 MAS.) BHARAT GINNING & PROCESSING FACTORY VS.ITO 9 THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. APART FROM THE ABOVE, T HERE ARE LARGE NUMBERS OF DECISIONS AT THE END OF THE HONBLE GUJA RAT HIGH COURT VIZ. CIT VS. NIRANJAN K. ZAVERI, 20 DTR 153 (GUJ), DCIT VS. LALITKUMAR M. PATEL 36 TAXMANN 554 (GUJ). THE TRIBUNAL FAILED TO CONSIDER AUTHORITATIVE PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURTS AS WELL AS HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT REFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE HEARING IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE, AND THEREFORE, AN APP ARENT ERROR HAS BEEN COMMITTED. WE ALLOW THESE MISC. APPLICATIONS, AND RECALL THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. WE DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO R E-FIX THE APPEALS ON 2.3.2020 FOR HEARING AFRESH. ISSUE NOTICE TO BOTH PARTIES. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATIONS OF THE ASS ESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 29 TH JANUARY, 2020 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (WASEEM AHMED) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) VICE-PRESIDENT AHMEDABAD; DATED 29/01/2020