TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (9) TMI 657
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s follows:- "2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that search u/s. 132 (1) was conducted at the business premises of the firm, M/s Jain Glass Industries, Firozabad and the residential premises of the partners of the assessee firm, namely Shri Dinesh Chand Jain, Mahesh Chand and Shri Sanjay Kumar Jain of Firozabad and the books of account, diaries and large number of loose papers were seized. The seized papers contained the details of business activities of the person searched and the assessee. The AO initiated proceedings u/s. 158BD of the IT Act against the assessee firm and estimated the undisclosed net profit of Rs. 29, 90, 774/-. However, addition was made in the hands of the assessee firm on protective basis. It was also noted in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no satisfaction was found recorded in the case of the person searched, held that the proceedings are invalid and cannot be proceeded against the assessee. The ld. CIT (A), accordingly, annulled the proceedings u/s. 158BD of the IT Act." 4. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Manish Maheshwari v. ACIT and ors (2007) 289 ITR 341 (SC) in which the Supreme Court held as follows:- "Condition precedent for invoking a block assessment is that a search has been conducted under Section 132, or documents or assets have been requisitioned under Section 132A. The said provision would apply in the case of any person in respect of whom search has been carried out under Section 132A or documents or assets ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case was transferred to ACIT, Central Circle, I, Varanasi. In April, 1997, the ACIT (Central Circle), Varanasi issued show-cause notice dated 7-7-1997 under Section 158BC(a) to the assessee-firm but later on the record was again transferred to ACIT, C.C.-II. Varanasi some time in the month of October, 1997. It appears that the authorities below have proceeded against the assessee firm under Section 158BC instead of proceeding under Section 158BD read with Section 158BC, therefore, the authorities below have not cared to mention anywhere that the Assessing Officer was satisfied that any undisclosed income belongs to such other person other than the person who is searched under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act. It is undisputed fact that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 158BD of the Act. He observed that the diaries B-20 and B-33 and a large number of loose papers seized from the premises of M/s Jain Industries relate to the period during which the assessee firm was doing the business of manufacture and sale of glass bangles. He thereafter observed ..."The diary B-20 (ledger) showed a net profit of Rs. 32, 189=70 for the F.Y. 1997-98 and part of F.Y. 1998-99. As the examination of these books revealed this profit was actually Rs. 32, 18, 970/- because the figures shown in these diaries were found to have been suppressed by two digits. The diary B-33 was the corresponding cash book for the period 22.8.97 to 17.5.98. Hence there was sufficient material to show that the assessee had earned undisclosed in....