2015 (1) TMI 705 - HC - Income Tax

Delhi High Court invalidates Section 158BD notices, stresses compliance with statutory requirements.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus BHARAT BHUSHAN JAIN AND OTHERS

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeals challenging notices issued under Section 158BD to third parties post search proceedings. The court emphasized ... Notice under Section 158BD - notice to third party - period of limitation - block assessment - Held that:- As decided in CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears [2014 (4) TMI 33 - SUPREME COURT] Revenue has to be vigilant in issuing notice to the third party under Section 158 BD, immediately after the completion of assessment of the searched person, this Court is of the opinion that a delay ranging between 10 months of 1 ½ years cannot be considered contemporaneous to assessment proceedings. We are of the opinion that notices were not issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 158BD, and were unduly delayed. The appeals of the Revenue accordingly fail and are dismissed. - Decided against revenue. Issues:1. Validity of notices issued under Section 158BD to third parties post search proceedings.2. Compliance with the requirements of Section 158BD regarding the recording of satisfaction notes.3. Contemporaneousness of satisfaction notes with assessment proceedings of the searched person.4. Examination of individual cases in light of Supreme Court observations on Section 158BD.Issue 1: Validity of notices issued under Section 158BD:The appeals involved challenges against the impugned order of ITAT concerning notices issued under Section 158BD to third parties subsequent to search proceedings. The search proceedings were conducted on a specific date, and notices were issued to the present assesses for block assessment. The primary contention revolved around the validity and timing of these notices in relation to the completion of assessment proceedings of the searched person.Issue 2: Compliance with Section 158BD requirements:The judgment highlighted the necessity of a satisfaction note under Section 158BD, emphasizing its preparation by the assessing officer before transmitting records to the relevant authority. The satisfaction note should align with specific stages, including initiation or completion of proceedings against the searched person. The Supreme Court's decision underscored the critical nature of this satisfaction note for Section 158BD compliance.Issue 3: Contemporaneousness of satisfaction notes:A crucial aspect examined was the contemporaneousness of satisfaction notes with the assessment proceedings of the searched person. The judgment detailed instances where satisfaction notes were recorded significantly after the completion of assessments, raising concerns about the adherence to the timeline prescribed by the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears.Issue 4: Examination of individual cases:The judgment analyzed individual cases in light of the Supreme Court's observations on Section 158BD. It scrutinized specific instances where satisfaction notes and related communications did not meet the statutory requirements, leading to the conclusion that the notices issued were not in conformity with Section 158BD and were unduly delayed. Consequently, the appeals of the Revenue were dismissed based on these findings.This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Delhi High Court delves into the intricacies of issues surrounding the validity of notices under Section 158BD, compliance with statutory requirements, contemporaneousness of satisfaction notes, and the individual examination of cases in light of relevant legal principles and precedents.