2014 (6) TMI 1016 - HC - Income Tax

Court Affirms ITAT Decision: Strict Compliance with Section 158 BD Required for Block Assessments.

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Versus J.B. Enterprises

The HC upheld the ITAT's decision, affirming that the statutory requirements under Section 158 BD were not fulfilled. The Court emphasized the necessity ... Block assessment for undisclosed income u/s 158BD - mandatory requirement before initiating proceedings u/s. 158BD - Held that:- Referring to case of Manish Maheshwari [2007 (2) TMI 148 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] satisfaction recorded by the assessment officer that any undisclosed income belonging to any person other than the person with respect to whom search was made under Section 132 is available. This recording of satisfaction is a mandatory requirement. From the observations and law laid down in the case of Manish Maheshwari [2007 (2) TMI 148 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] it is clear that recording of reason is a mandatory requirement as contemplated under Section 158BD. That being so, we see no error in the order passed by the Tribunal that recording of reasons is mandatory provision. As far as alternate submission to the effect that in the present case communications available do show that reason we are not impressed from the aforesaid contention. They are only communication of certain fact with regard to issue in question but there is no specific recording of reason for re-opening of the block under Section 158 BD. - Decided in favour of assessee Issues: Tenability of order by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal interfering with assessment orders due to lack of recorded satisfaction and reasons for block assessment under Section 158 BD.Analysis:1. The appellant challenged the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur, questioning the tenability of interfering with assessment orders due to the absence of recorded satisfaction and reasons for conducting block assessment for undisclosed income under Section 158 BD. The primary contention raised was that recording of reasons was unnecessary as it was evident from the communication on record.2. The appellant's counsel referred to a judgment by the Kerala High Court in a similar case and argued that, based on the principles laid down by the Kerala High Court, the recording of reasons was not mandatory. Alternatively, it was argued that even if the recording of reasons was required, it had been done as evidenced by the communication mentioned in the Tribunal's order.3. The High Court examined the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Manish Maheshwari, which outlined the mandatory conditions to be followed before initiating proceedings under Section 158 BD. The Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of the Assessing Officer recording satisfaction that undisclosed income belonged to a person other than the one searched under Section 132, transferring relevant documents, and proceeding against the concerned person under Section 158 BC.4. The High Court concluded that the recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer was a mandatory requirement under Section 158 BD, as highlighted by the Supreme Court's interpretation. The Court noted that the Kerala High Court's judgment did not adequately consider the principles laid down in the Manish Maheshwari case, emphasizing the mandatory nature of recording reasons for block assessments.5. The Court dismissed the appellant's alternate submission regarding the communication showing reasons, stating that the communications merely presented facts related to the issue without specifically recording reasons for reopening the block under Section 158 BD. Consequently, the Tribunal's decision that the statutory requirements under Section 158 BD were not met was upheld, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.