TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (12) TMI 623
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s under : "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law in quashing the block assessment made under section 158BD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 since no time limit has been mentioned in the Income-tax Act, for the issue of notice under section 158BD." 3. On behalf of the Revenue, an adjournment application was filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax-Departmental representative Shri Navneet Sony. It has been stated in the adjournment application that the Commissioner of Income-tax-Departmental representative is under transfer and a new incumbent will be joining in the next week and hence the matter may be adjourned. Adjournment application of the Revenue was rejected in view....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Officer, this issue was raised that the notice under section 158BD is not valid because there was no satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer of the searched person and the proceedings initiated in the present case under section 158BD are time-barred. These objections were rejected by the Assessing Officer. In appeal, before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), these objections were raised again. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has followed the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Manoj Aggarwal (supra) and decided that satisfaction was recorded by the Assessing Officer of the searched person on May 6, 2004 in the form of letter issued by him to the Assessing Officer of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the last panchanama was drawn. There is no mention in the order of the Assessing Officer that any satisfaction was recorded by the Assessing Officer of the searched person in the block assessment order passed by him in the case of Usha group and the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has considered the letter received by the Assessing Officer of the present assessee from the Assessing Officer of Usha group as the satisfaction note which is dated May 6, 2004. There is no dispute on this issue also because the Assessing Officer was also referring to this letter only regarding satisfaction of the Assessing Officer of Usha group. Under these facts, we are in agreement with the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that in the l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Special Bench order in Manoj Aggarwal v. Deputy CIT as reported in [2009] 310 ITR (AT) 99 (Delhi) ; 113 ITD 377, the satisfaction by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-9 should have been recorded before February 28, 2003. Since the satisfaction was not recorded within the time limit, as held to be legally permissible by the Bench, the notice under section 158BC issued in pursuance to that satisfaction note was invalid as it was out of time. Therefore, following the decision of the Special Bench in the case of Manoj Aggarwal v. Deputy CIT as reported in [2009] 310 ITR (AT) 99 (Delhi) ; 113 ITD 377, the notice issued under section 158BD in the case of the appellant is held to be invalid and accordingly the block ass....