TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (4) TMI 520
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s are identical, so all the appeals are decided by this common judgment for the sake of convenience. All the appeals were admitted with the following substantial questions of law by various orders including the order dated 24.02.2010: i. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Aappeals)by incorrect interpretation of section 153C of the I.T.Act which only prescribeds the procedure to be adopted in a situation where the Assessing Officer having the books of accounts of other person does not have jurisdiction over such person whereas in the case of the assessee the books were already handed over to the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Firm consisting of two partners namely Sri Siraj Iqbal and Smt. Farjana Siraj engaged in the business of running of hospital, building and educational institutions. On 10.11.2005, a search was conducted at the business premises of Sri Siraj Iqbal as well as at various business premises of the assessees. On 28.09.2006, the books of accounts were handed-over to the AO to pass assessment orders. The A.O. issued notice under section 153 C of the Act. Later, the assessment orders were passed for the assessment years mentioned above under section 153 C /143 (3) of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment orders, the assessees have filed the first appeals before the CIT (A) who vide his orders including the order dated 19.12.2008 quashed the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....53-C of the Act, issued notices to all the assesses. The reply was furnished on 28.12.2007. Further, Section 153C only prescribes the procedure to be adopted for initiating proceedings under section 153A against a person who has not been searched, that too, in a situation where the A.O. having the jurisdiction over the other persons (not searched) is different from the A.O. having jurisdiction over the person searched. In the case of Manish Maheshwari vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and another (2007) 289 ITR 341 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that in case of block assessment, the A.O. had to (i) record his satisfaction that any undisclosed income belonged to the company; and (ii) hand over the books of account other do....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... There was no error in this finding. Findings of fact by the Tribunal could not be interfered with." This ratio is applicable in the instant case as on 28.09.2006, the books of accounts were handed-over to the A.O., after being satisfied that the books belongs to the assessee. After recording the satisfaction, a notice under section 153-C was issued and the assessee replied too. So, assessment order was completed on 28.12.2007 under section 153-C/143 (3) of the Act. Regarding the satisfaction, it may be mentioned that in the case of CIT vs. Radhey Shyam Bansal; (2011) 337 ITR 217 (Delhi), it was observed that in order to initiate block assessment proceedings against a third person in respect of whom search has not been conducted, certain ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore him shows or would establish 'undisclosed income' of a third person. At this stage, as the proceedings are at the very initial state, the 'satisfaction' is neither required to be firm or conclusive. The 'satisfaction' required is to decide whether or not block assessment proceedings are required to be initiated. But 'satisfaction' has to be founded on reasonableness. It cannot be capricious satisfaction. Though, it is a subjective satisfaction, it must be capable of being tested on objective parameters. The opinion though tentative, however, cannot be a product of imagination or speculation. The satisfaction must reflect rational connection with or relevant bearing between the material available and undisclosed income of the third per....