2017 (2) TMI 553

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....x Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The common impugned order disposed of 67 appeals pertaining to 52 different assessees, amongst them were the present two respondents before us. The Revenue has filed these two appeals being aggrieved by the impugned order of the Tribunal to the extent it relates to assessment year 2007-08 in Income Tax Appeal No.150 of 2014 in the case of M/s.Ambit Realty Pvt. Ltd. and it relates for assessment year 2008-09 in Income Tax Appeal No.83 of 2014 in the case of M/s.Arpit Land Pvt. Ltd. 2. Although multiple questions have been formulated in the appeal memo, Mr.Kotangale, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue urges only following question of law for our consideration : "(i) Whether on t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... searched, then the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such person on being handed over seized document etc can proceed against such other person by recording satisfaction and issuing a notice in accordance with the provisions of Section 153A of the Act. The impugned order of the Tribunal records the fact that the documents seized from the possession of Mr.Dilip Dherai do not belong to any of two respondents - assessees before us, consequently, the Assessing Officer did not have jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Act to issue notice to the respondents - assessees. Consequently, the Tribunal also held that satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer before initiating assessment proceedings in respect of two respondents - asses....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t found during search proceedings should belong to assessee to whom notice is issued under Section 153C of the Act. It was fairly pointed out to us by Mr.Mistry, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent - assessee that the above decision was reversed by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Vijaybhai N. Chandrani (2013) 357 ITR 713. However, we find that the Apex Court reversed the view of Gujarat High Court on the ground that efficacious alternative remedy was available to the petitioner to raise its objections before the authorities under the Act. Therefore, the Gujarat High Court should not have exercised its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction to entertain the petition. However, the Apex Court also clarified that it was not expressing any opin....