TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 551
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the petitioners herein. Further challenge is to the notice dated 11.12.2023 under Section 142(1) of the Act' 1961. The prayer is to restrain the respondents from enforcing the compliance of the impugned notice under Section 153C dated 06.05.2022 for A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The grounds to challenge the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Act' 1961 are that :- i. Satisfaction note of the searched person and satisfaction note of the petitioner (other than the searched person) are verbatim. ii. The proceedings are invalid as the satisfaction note does not contain DIN (Document Identification Number), mandatorily to be generated as per the CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 dated 14.08.2019. iii. No incriminating material was found against the petitioners during the search carried out on 15.10.2019. iv. There is undue delay in recording the satisfaction note in the case of the petitioners. v. Baseless allegations have been made against the petitioners without there being any material before the Assessing Officer to even record a prima facie proof that the seized material has a bearing on the petitioners' case. 3. Elaborating the above noted grounds, it was argued by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the searched person, it was found that Survey No. 287 was sold by the searched person to the petitioner herein by a document, namely Sale Deed Register No. 1616 dated 21.08.2019. On consideration of the rate for the land at Survey No. 287, on the statement recorded of the searched person, it was found prima facie that the petitioners herein/assessees had paid "on money" in cash of Rs. 11,25,97,290/- in A.Y. 2020-21 for purchase of the land bearing Survey No. 287 at Muthiya village. It was, thus, concluded that the information received during the course of search carried out on 15.10.2019 from the seized material, the information in the seized incriminating documents, pertains/relates to the petitioner herein, namely Bhagwandas Rupchand Parwani. The satisfaction note was, thus, forwarded by the Assessing Officer of the searched person to the Assessing Officer of the petitioner herein vide communication dated 07.04.2022 with the observation that during the course of search, document/ digital data related to the petitioner were found and seized and the same is being forwarded for perusal and necessary action. 6. We may further note that the petitioner's objection to the satisfacti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d, without going through the material with regard to his satisfaction that the documents seized belong to the other person and the said documents do not belong to other person, hence, the jurisdictional requirement under Section 153C(1) of the Act' 1961 of the Assessing Officer of the searched person having to be satisfied that the seized documents do not belong to the searched person but to the assessee (other than the searched person) has not been fulfilled. In these facts and circumstances of the said case, the satisfaction notes issued by the Assessing Officer of the searched person as also the assessee (other than the searched person) and all consequential proceedings thereto were quashed. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, in view of the change in the legal regime with effect from 01.06.2015, the requirement is that even an information contained in the documents seized, if pertains to or relates to a person other than the searched person, the requirement of Section 153C(1) can be held to be fulfilled. In view of the categorical statement in the satisfaction note of the searched person forwarded by the Assessing Officer of the searched person to the Assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed or not, was answered in favour of the Revenue having noted that it is sufficient for the Assessing Officer to note in the satisfaction note that the documents seized from the searched person belonged to the other person. 10. Having gone through the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Super Malls (P) Limited (supra), we find that the observations made therein with regard to the mandatory requirement of Section 153C of the Act to record a satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer of the petitioner assessee herein, before issuing notice under Section 153C of the Act has been fulfilled in the facts of the instant case. 11. Having noted the fact that the satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer of the petitioner assessee has not been brought on record and moreover, the assessment note of the Assessing Officer of the searched person indicates a prima facie case of inquiry against the petitioner, we do not find any substance in the argument of the learned Senior Counsel that the satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer of the petitioner is to be discarded being a copy in verbatim of the satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer of the searched person. It is not a case whe....