2015 (1) TMI 705

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....am Ahuja And Mr. Mukul Mathur, Advocates MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) 1. These appeals are directed against the impugned order of ITAT. Since they involved common questions of law, a common order is being made in the present cases. 2. In all these cases, assessee/respondents were third parties, who were issued notice under Section 158BD pursuant to search proceedings in respect of other persons. In all these cases, the search proceedings were conducted on 03.08.2000. Thereafter notice was issued to them for block assessment for filing of relevant returns for previous years. The assessment proceedings were completed on 29.08.2002. Thereafter, the present assesses-third parties were issued notices under Section 158BD . T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....2005   3. These appeals were originally disposed of by common judgment of this Court reported as CIT vs. Radhey Shyam Bansal 2011 337 ITR 217 (DLI). In that judgment it was held that the satisfaction note in all the cases was recorded and notices were issued beyond the period of limitation. It was held, inter alia, that the satisfaction note recorded in these cases did not accord with the requirements of Section 158BD, applying the decision in CIT vs. Manish Maheshwari (2007) 289 ITR 341 (SC). In this batch of judgments, along with another batch of cases, appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court, which decided in its judgment reported as CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhina 362 ITR 673 (SC), inter alia, that: "44. In the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o the order of this Court in CIT vs. Radhey Shyam Bansal (supra) the bone of contention is whether the period when the satisfaction note was recorded, was contemporaneous with the period in which assessment proceedings of the searched person were carried out, as held by the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears (supra). In each of the cases it is evident that the satisfaction note was recorded almost or just short of or more than a year after the completion of assessment of the searched person. In ITA No. 279/2010, the satisfaction note was recorded on 26.08.2003 i.e. four days short of a year after completion of assessment of the searched person; in ITA No. 1145/2010 it is recorded on 14.01.2004 i.e. about one year an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....viding accommodation book entries by Manoj Aggarwal. The second sentence in the first paragraph states that the quantum of transactions as shown in the documents were enclosed as Annexure-A and the photocopies of the papers were enclosed as Annexure-B. The second paragraph states that there was evidence that cash was received by Manoj Aggarwal from the respondent and the summary of the amounts received as per the seized documents was given in Annexure C and the photocopies of the documents were annexed as Annexure-D. It is accepted that Annexures A, B, C & D, referred to in this letter were not filed before the tribunal and have not been produced before us. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the revenue that they are also not availab....