TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 1426
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A No. 615/2016 C.Ms.No. 42538/2016 & 42539/2016 (delay) in ITA No. 801/2016 C.Ms.No. 43053/2016 & 43054/2016 (delay) in ITA No. 805/2016 C.Ms.No. 43253/2016 & 43254/2016 (delay) in ITA No. 809/2016 C.M.No. 43265/2016 & 43266/2016 (delay) in ITA No. 814/2016 C.Ms.No. 43686/2016 & 43687/2016 (delay) in ITA No. 840/2016 C.Ms.No. 44047/2016 & 44048/2016 (delay) in ITA No. 848/2016 C.Ms. No. 44055/2016 & 44056/2016 (delay) in ITA No. 849/2016 1. For the reasons explained in the applications, the delay in filing as well as re-filing is condoned. The applications are disposed of. ITAs Nos. 613/2016, 614/2016, 615/2016, 801/2016, 805/2016, 809/2016, 814/2016, 840/2016, 848/2016, 849/2016. 2. These are ten appeals by the R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."In the case of Sh. B. K. Dhingra, Smt. Poonam Dhingra, M/s Mayank Traders Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Horizon Pvt. Ltd., search & seizure took place u/s 132 on 20.10.2008. The undersigned is the jurisdictional AO of these cases. During the course of search & seizure documents/papers at pages 1 to 38 of Annexure A-87, Annexures, A-96, A-97, A-98 and A-99, are found to belong to M/s. Instronics Ltd., 192C, J & K Pocket, Dilshad Garden, New Delhi. I have examined the above mentioned documents/papers and provision of Section 153C is invokeable in this case. As the undersigned is also the jurisdictional AO of M/s. Instronics Ltd. 192C, J & K Pocket, Dilshad Garden, New Delhi, this satisfaction note is recorded and is placed in the file before issuing notic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the application made under the RTI Act. It was contended before the ITAT by the Assessee that the satisfaction note recorded on 30th September, 2010 was by the AO of the Assessee and not the AO of the searched person. Accepting this submission, the ITAT by the impugned order held that the assumption of jurisdiction against the Assessee under Section 153C of the Act was unsustainable in law. 12. It is contended by Mr. Ashok Manchanda, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue that the ITAT erred in observing that there is no satisfaction note of the AO of the searched person in the present case. It overlooked that in the satisfaction note itself, the AO specifically notes that he is also the jurisdictional AO for all of the cases....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of a notice to such searched person under Section 153 A of the Act. At that stage the AO does not have to record another satisfaction note qua the searched person. (ii) Where proceedings are proposed to be initiated under Section 153C of the Act against the 'other person', it has to be preceded by a satisfaction note by the AO of the searched person. He will record in this satisfaction note that the seized document belongs to the other person. Depending on the nature and contents of the document he may be required to give some reasons for such conclusion. (iii) Where the AO of the searched person is different from the AO of the other person the AO will, simultaneous with transmitting the documents along with his satisfaction....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he searched person. (vii) Where the AO of the searched person records that the seized document in question belongs to the other person, and where necessary gives the reasons therefor, the requirement of Section 153 C stands satisfied. The failure by the AO in such case to record in the satisfaction note that such document does not belong to the searched person will not vitiate the proceedings under Section 153 C against the other person." 15. In the present case, the ITAT overlooked the fact that the Satisfaction Note was in fact recorded by the AO of the searched person who also happened to be the AO for the Assessee (the other person) as well. This is clear from the sentence in the Satisfaction Note which reads: "The undersigned is ....