TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 917
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 09.02.2012 and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Against this tribunal order, the assessee moved miscellaneous application and in miscellaneous application No.87/Ahd/2012 dated 06.07.2012, the tribunal order dated 09.02.2012 was recalled for the limited purpose to decide the assessee's objection regarding validity of the jurisdiction of the A.O. u/s 158 BD in the light of the written submission of the assessee filed before the tribunal dated 28.04.2011 which was available on record but were not considered by the Tribunal in this Tribunal order dated 09.02.2012. Thereafter, the appeal was heard again by the tribunal and order was passed on 28.09.2012 and it was held that the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issue raised before the Tribunal was that the satisfaction note recorded by the relevant Assessing Officer for issuance of notice u/s 158 BD of the Act was not in the file of the revenue. After elaborate arguments, the Bench had decided the matter by delivering a speaking order after considering the case laws cited by the assessee at the time of hearing before the Bench. However, the learned AR had pointed before us that there was other relevant factual and legal issues discussed in the written submission placed before the Bench and the same were not considered by the Bench in its order. On perusing the written submission we find the submission of the learned AR has merit. Since certain factual and legal aspects discussed in the written sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der passed by the A.O. u/s 158BC in the case of searched person i.e. Mukesh M Oza was not valid assessment. 5. The 2nd argument raised by the Ld. A.R. was this that there is no seizure in the case of searched person Shri Mukesh M Oza and, therefore, cannot be any seized document on the basis of which a satisfaction can be there of the A.O. of the searched person that there is any undisclosed income of some other person i.e. the present assessee. At this juncture, a query was raised by the Bench as to whether any such contention was raised before the authorities below i.e. Ld. CIT(A) or the A.O. and in reply, it was submitted by the Ld. A.R. that this contention was very much raised before Ld. CIT(A) but no finding is given by them in this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....although it is the claim of the Ld. A.R. that this contention was raised before Ld. CIT(A) in support of Ground NO.1 raised by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A) which was rejected by him by stating that this ground is general in nature. Under these facts, we feel that in the interest of justice, this matter should go back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision on this aspect alone, as to whether the A.O. of the present assessee could had any jurisdiction on the assessee u/s 158BD after examining this aspect as to whether any incriminating material/document was seized in the course of search carried on 07.11.2000 in the case of Mukesh M Oza because we find that there is an argument of the Ld. A.R. before us that although a paper book of....