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

....(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 . The relevant dates of recording of the satisfaction note by the A.O., issue of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d 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 result, we hold that for the purpose of Section 158BD of the Act a satisfaction note is sine qua non and must be prepared by the assessing officer before he transmits the records to the other assessing officer who has jurisdiction over such other pers....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....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 and four months after the searched person's assessment is completed. In ITA No. 1313/2010 and 1326/2010, satisfaction notes were recorded on 04.06.2003 i.e. about nearly 10 months after the completion of the assessment of the searched person. 5. Additional....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd 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 available on the file of the Assessing Officer of the respondent. There is no explanation forthcoming with regard to the aforesaid annexures. It is well nigh impossible to know their content. The first paragraph of the letter dated 15th July, 2003 states that the resp....