TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (4) TMI 543
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the following additional ground : "The notice issued under section 158BD of IT Act, 1961 is illegal, invalid and bad in law and consequent assessment framed thereupon is liable to be cancelled." It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the assessee that the ground raised is purely legal and goes to the root of the matter and is also based on the legal finding given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Maheshwari v. Asstt. CIT [2007] 289 ITR 341 Shoreline Hotel (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT.htm. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 for adjudication of the additional ground. The only objection raised by the learned Departmenta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the person searched and therefore the Assessing Officer validly assumed jurisdiction in the case of assessee, by invoking the provisions of section 158BD. The satisfaction note was not available at the time of hearing, but the learned Departmental Representative promised to furnish the same within a short period and the same has also been furnished by him. 4. Submissions from both parties have been considered carefully. The question for our consideration is whether the jurisdiction under section 158BD has been validly acquired? In this connection, it would be appropriate to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Maheshwari ( supra)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nner. Therefore, the object of the legislature would be frustrated if the contention of the Department was to be accepted. The Tribunal considered the legal finding recorded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Maheshwari ( supra) and finally concluded that satisfaction contemplated under section 158BD was required to be recorded by the Assessing Officer of the person searched at any time, but not later than the finalisation of the assessment of the undisclosed income for the block period in the case of person put to search. 6. In the context of these two decisions, let us now examine whether the jurisdiction under section 158BD was validly assumed. We have gone through the satisfaction note sent by the Assessing Officer ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion over these cases, has prepared a detailed report on the modus operandi adopted by Hawala bill operators. Your assessees happen to be two of the beneficiaries in this Hawala bill racket operated by Sh. Chandramani S. Misra and Sh. Santosh Kr. Tiwari directors of abovementioned paper/table space office companies. The details of the Hawala bills taken by your assessee(s) are as under : Bill beneficiary Hawala bill party Date Amount Hotel Faryaz/s NSMPL 27-4-1996 2,67,017.06 28-6-1996 2,57,780.60 14-11-1996 2,64,810.98 21-1-1997 2,69,496.90 25-3-1997 2,74,184.82  ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Supreme Court, has not been satisfied and consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 158BD was illegal. Secondly, it is seen from the above letter that information was given vide letter dated 21-9-2001, while the search in the cases of M/s. Nishalchandra Sales & Marketing (P.) Ltd. and other companies was carried out on 22nd Oct., 1997. That means, the block assessment could be completed latest by 31-10-1999. Therefore, the satisfaction should have been recorded by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the person searched under section 132, latest by 31-10-1999. However, such satisfaction note is dated 21-9-2001, which is much beyond the period by which the block assessment could be completed in the case of person s....