TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (4) TMI 922
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ggrieved that reliance placed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the decision of the hon'ble apex court in the case of Manish Maheshwari v. Asst. CIT [2007] 289 ITR 341 was incorrect while determining the jurisdictional aspect relating to an assessment made under section 153C. According to the Revenue, section 153C envisaged satisfaction of existence of undisclosed income and did not mention anything about possession of documents or transfer thereof to another Assessing Officer. The Revenue further submitted that the Assessing Officer was an officer in the Central Circle, where all the cases of the group named SRM of which the assessee was also a part, were being assessed. Therefore, according to it, there was no question of transfer of any seized material. The assessment for the impugned assessment year was made on the assessee under section 153C read with section 143(3) of the Act. During the course of search of one Shri T. R. Pachamuthu, chairman of one M/s. Valliammal Society, deposits of the assessee and his family members with the concerns in SRM group were noted. There was no search whatsoever in the assessee's premises. Notices were issued to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assessing Officer in the order sheet on November 21, 2005, could not have been factually possible. Further according to him, there was no examination of materials seized at the time of search of T. R. Pachamuthu, chairman of Valliammai Society with reference to the return filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2004-05. Thus, coming to a conclusion that there was no recording of the requisite satisfaction as to the existence of any undisclosed income, he deleted the additions made in the assessment. But nevertheless, holding that in respect of income returned by the assessee, no relief could be given to it, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ruled the appeal to have been only partly allowed. Now before us, the learned Departmental representative producing the order sheet of the Assessing Officer dated November 21, 2005 submitted that a satisfaction was clearly recorded by the Assessing Officer. According to him, the Assessing Officer doing assessment of T. R. Pachamuthu, Chairman of Valliammai Society as also the assessee here, were one and the same and therefore, there was no question of any transfer of books of account, documents. Further according to him, su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....[2007] 289 ITR 34, the learned authorised representative argued that these were very similar. According to him, recording of satisfaction was essential and this was not done. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was, therefore, justified in deleting the addition. Learned counsel in this regard also relied on the decision of New Delhi Auto Finance P. Ltd. v. Joint CIT [2008] 300 ITR 83 (Delhi) of the hon'ble Delhi High Court. In support of its cross-objection, the learned authorised representative stated that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) after having confirmed that requisite satisfaction under section 153C was not recorded, ought to have quashed the assessment and ought not have ruled that the appeal of the assesse was only partly allowed. Reliance was placed on the decision of the hon'ble apex court in the case of CIT v. Shelly Products [2003] 261 ITR 367 in support. In reply the learned Departmental representative stated that no comparison could be drawn between section 158BD and section 153BC. According to him, a case law relevant to section 158BD could not be relied on, for interpreting section 153C of the Act. We have heard the rival contentions and pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k assessment proceedings referred to search materials for making an assessment pursuant to a search, a reading of section 153C along with section 153A brings to the fore the difference between these procedures, in that, here there is no requirement that assessments had to be made only with reference to the materials seized at the time of search. This position clearly evolves out of the decision of co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Harvey Heart Hospitals Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (I. T. A. No. 1840, 1841 and 1843/Mds/ 08), the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ms. Shyam Lata Kaushik v. Asst. CIT [2008] 306 ITR (AT) 117 ; 114 ITD 305, and again the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shivnath Rai Harnarain (India) Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2008] 304 ITR (AT) 271. This is re-enforced by the decision of the hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Abhay Kumar Shroff v. CIT [2007] 290 ITR 114. Thus, we are in full agreement with the learned Departmental representative that search assessment proceedings as contemplated under Chapter XIV-B could not be equated with search assessment proceedings under sections 153A to 153D of the Act. But the question is will that be sufficient....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and such deposits were unaccounted. There is nothing mentioned here regarding any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized, to be belonging to Shri M. N. Rajaraman. The deposits alleged to have been found to be made by the assessee in M/s. Valliammai Society and the other concerns cannot be equated to money, bullion, jewellery, valuable article or books of account or documents seized. Nothing is recorded in the order sheet that any seized items from the search proceedings done in the case of T. R. Pachamuthu and group concerns belonged to the assessee. The question of handing over to an Assessing Officer would come only after there is any satisfaction reached regarding money, bullion, jewellery etc., seized belonging to the assessee. It is here that the decision of the hon'ble apex court in Manish Maheshwari's case [2007] 289 ITR 341 would come into play. The hon'ble apex court clearly held that the notice under section 158BD of the Act should satisfy the requirement of that section since the law in this regard was clear and explicit. Thus, there could be no doubt that even for a notice under section 153C of th....