TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 907
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2. That the impugned assessment order is bad in law as no satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer of the person searched that the document belongs to a person (the appellant) other than searched person. 3. That the impugned assessment order is bad in law as the notice under section 153C has been issued without arriving at a conclusive satisfaction, cogent material and basis of arriving at the satisfaction.. 3. That the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in not admitting the above mentioned additional grounds of appeal involving the issue related to recording of proper and conclusive satisfaction before issue of notice u/s 153C despite the fact that in the remand report, the AO has accepted that no satisfaction was recorded in the case of the assessee. 4. That the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in not admitting the above mentioned additional grounds of appeal involving the issue related to recording of proper and conclusive satisfaction before issue of notice u/s 153C despite the fact that the additional grounds are purely legal and can be raised any time during the pendency of the proceedings. 5. That t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rial and basis of arriving at the satisfaction.. 3. That the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in not admitting the above mentioned additional grounds of appeal involving the issue related to recording of proper and conclusive satisfaction before issue of notice u/s 153C despite the fact that in the remand report, the AO has accepted that no satisfaction was recorded in the case of the assessee. 4. That the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in not admitting the above mentioned additional grounds of appeal involving the issue related to recording of proper and conclusive satisfaction before issue of notice u/s 153C despite the fact that the additional grounds are purely legal and can be raised any time during the pendency of the proceedings. 5. That the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the ex-parte assessment passed by the AO on the basis of the two notice issued on 08.12.11, fixing the date of hearing on 14.12.11 and second and the last notice was issued on 15.12.11 fixing date of hearing on 16.12.11 despite the fact that the assessee was bed ridden and was not in a position to attend the proceedings. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Assessing Officer assumed u/s 153C. It is pertinent to mention, challenging the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, the assessee has also taken additional grounds vide his applications dated 23.03.2018 and 29.06.2018. The Assessing Officer has incorrectly assumed the impugned year as search year and hence erred in framing the assessment of the impugned year without issuing Mandatory notice of 153C of the Act. No satisfaction note in the file of searched person as per the guideline of Board has ever been recorded by the Assessing Officer of searched person. Alleged satisfaction note does not prove that anything incriminating against the assessee was found in the search. The Ld. AR further submitted that before going to issues and submission of the assessee, it is worthy to point out certain dates which go to the root of the matter and would be helpful in deciding the legal grounds raised by the assessee. Important Dates and sequence of events in the case of Ambawatta Build Well Pvt. Ltd. Date Sequence of event Page No of PB 16.02.2010 Search action in the case of Vipin Kapoor was undertaken. So search year for Vipin Kapoor would be AY 2010-11 and F.Y 1.04.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee would be 02.11.2011 which falls under AY 2012- 13 (not AY 2010-11) and six previous years would be as follows. 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012 2012-13 (Search year for 153C) 1.04.2010 to 31.03.2011 2011-12 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010 2010-11 1.04.2008 to 31.03.2009 2009-10 1.04.2007 to 31.03.2008 2008-09 1.04.2006 to 31.03.2007 2007-08 1.04.2005 to 31.03.2006 2006-07 The Ld. AR further submitted that as per the sub-rule-5 of Rule 6F every assessee under the Income Tax Act has to maintain the account of six previous years for the purpose of Income Tax. Now supposing a search is conducted in one year and documents of other person are handed over to the Assessing Officer, of other person or to the Assessing Officer with whom jurisdiction is centralized, after two years from the date of search, then for which six years the other person would show his accounts, whether for the years which are applicable for search person or for those years which are governed by the proviso. The Ld. AR submitted that obviously for those years which are governed by the proviso because the Income Tax Rules say so. And that is why the legislature in its wisdom by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... person and 2nd is of the other person and 153C notice is to be issued by the 2nd Assessing Officer i.e. of the other person. This aspect is further clear from the Circular of CBDT. The Ld. AR submitted that in the present case the Assessing Officer of assessee while submitting the remand report has candidly accepted that he has not recorded any satisfaction in the file of searched person. He has just taken a plea that he was the Assessing Officer of both searched person and of the assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that recently the Tribunal in the case of Ambawatta Buildwell reported in ITA No 2591 of 2015 dated 09.04.2019, after considering the chronology of the sequence of events, in a case where the Assessing Officer of the searched person and person covered u/s 153C was same has observed as under:- In so far as the dates referred to by the learned AR are concerned, absolutely there is no dispute. Search in this matter was conducted on 9.11.2011 and the seized documents belonging to the assessee were received in the Central Circle on 29.8.2013. The satisfaction note was recorded by the ld. AO on 3.10.2013. Basing on this, as contended by the learned AR, it is evident that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... It is pertinent to note that no satisfaction was recorded in case of search person and thus, the assessment itself becomes null and void. In fact, in the present case the Assessing Officer of assessee while submitting the remand report has categorically accepted that he has not recorded any satisfaction in the file of searched person. He has just taken a plea that he was the Assessing Officer of both searched person and of the assessee. Besides this the contentions of the Ld. AR that as per the sub-rule-5 of Rule 6F every assessee under the Income Tax Act has to maintain the account of six previous years for the purpose of Income Tax. Now supposing a search is conducted in one year and documents of other person are handed over to the Assessing Officer, of other person or to the Assessing Officer with whom jurisdiction is centralized, after two years from the date of search, then for which six years the other person would show his accounts, whether for the years which are applicable for search person or for those years which are governed by the proviso. Thus, for those years which are governed by the proviso because the Income Tax Rules say so. And that is why the legislature in h....