TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (2) TMI 21
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g "satisfaction" to the effect that undisclosed income belonged to the appellant was patently lacking on the face of record." 3. The filing of paper books is dispensed with. 4. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 15^th February, 2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench "A" in I.T. (SS) A. No.26/Del/99 relevant for the block period 1^st July, 1987 to 20^th March, 1996. 5. A search was conducted on 20^th March, 1996 under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at various premises belonging to M/s Elora Mechanical Products (P) Ltd., the office of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was submitted that only information was given to the effect that a notice should be issued to the Assessee under Section 142(1) of the Act. 9. The Assessing Officer rejected the objection raised by the Assessee but did not specifically deal with the contention urged that satisfaction ought to have been recorded in respect of initiating proceedings under Section 158-BD of the Act. 10. In the assessment order this contention raised by the Assessee has been specifically noted in the following words: "During the Block Assessments proceedings of M/s Ellora Mechanical Product (P) Ltd. the assessing officer found various incriminating documents related to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t (P) Ltd. and with the result of which the proceedings have been initiated. The Assessing Officer having Jurisdiction over the assessee who had been subjected to search must record a note of satisfaction and reasons thereof. In the instant case it was submitted that no such note has been recorded. It was further submitted that such proceedings have not only to be initiated but also to be completed within a period of one year when search was conducted and in any case within a period of one year from the date of recording the reason of satisfaction. Thirdly, the jurisdiction over the assessee"s case lies with ACIT Company Circle 26(5). With regard to the legal issue regarding assumption of jurisdiction under sec. 158-BD, we do not f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duals/ local authority are assessable for the block period mentioned in section 158B(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The return should be in the prescribed form No. 2B and be delivered in this office within 16 days of service of this notice, duly verified and signed in accordance with the provisions of Section 140 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Sd/- (D.V. SINGH) JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-15, NEW DELHI. Recd. on 29.10.98 By Sh. J.B. Aggarwal." 14. Reliance was placed by learned counsel for the Assessee on Manish Maheshwari v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, [2007] 289 ITR 341 in support of his contention that the Assessing Officer must record his satisfaction ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e only thing recorded by the Assessing Officer is that information was given that a notice should be issued to the Assessee under Section 142(1) of the Act. This hardly meets with the first condition precedent given in Manish Maheshwari. 17. In so far as the vagueness of the notice is concerned, we find that in Manish Maheshwari the notice issued the Assessee in that case was more or less similar to the notice dated 26^th October, 1998 issued to the Assessee in the present case. In the case of Manish Maheshwari the additional fact mentioned in the notice sent to the Assessee was that a search was conducted in the month of November, 1995. In so far as the present case is concerned, the Assessee has not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uing of a proper notice to the Assessee for initiating block assessment proceedings. The notice dated 26^th October, 1998 issued to the Assessee is as vague (if not more) than the notice issued in Manish Maheshwari. Such a vague notice, as held by the Supreme Court shows "a patent non-application of mind." 20. It has been pointed out by the Supreme Court that the consequences arising out of invoking the provisions of Chapter XIV-B of the Act are drastic and draconian. The accounts of the Assessee may be re-opened for ten years and not only a legal presumption is raised against the Assessee but the burden shifts on the Assessee to show that it did not have any undisclosed income. Under these circu....