Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessment framed under section 143(3) read with section 153C was valid in the absence of satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer of the searched person before handing over seized material relating to the assessee.
Analysis: Section 153C requires a satisfaction that seized money, books of account, documents or assets belong to or relate to a person other than the searched person, followed by handing over of such material and a further satisfaction before assessment of the other person. The requirement is jurisdictional and is not dispensed with merely because the Assessing Officer of the searched person and the other person is the same. The decision in Calcutta Knitwears and the CBDT circular were applied to hold that separate satisfaction by the searched person's Assessing Officer is mandatory. On the facts, the only note produced was an order-sheet entry in the assessee's file before issue of notice, which did not satisfy the statutory precondition of prior satisfaction in the searched person's case.
Conclusion: The assessment under section 143(3) read with section 153C was invalid and was quashed for all the assessment years in question.
Ratio Decidendi: The jurisdiction under section 153C can be assumed only when the Assessing Officer of the searched person first records the required satisfaction that seized material belongs to or relates to another person, and this prerequisite remains mandatory even where the same officer assesses both persons.