2024 (7) TMI 514

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in law in reversing the order of the CIT(A) & A.O., without looking into the facts that the satisfaction note for initiating proceedings under Section 158BD of the Income Tax Act, against the assessee was duly recorded by the A.O. of UIC Group and as such the said order suffers from perversity? 3. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that a search in the premises of UIC Group was conducted by the income tax department on 7.5.2022 in which certain share certificates issued in the name of the respondent/assessee were found. There is nothing on record to show that any action by the assessing officer of the searched person was taken or any adverse inference was drawn ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt/assessee on 2.7.2004. In response, the respondent/assessee submitted a letter dated 20.1.2006 stating that he has no undisclosed income. On 6.3.2006 the assessing officer of the respondent/assessee issued summons to four persons under Section 131 of the Act, 1961. On 10.3.2006 the inspector submitted a report stating that he had visited the preemies of the four persons at their given addresses. Thus, the summons issued to four persons under Section 131, namely, Shankar Lal Godh, Surendra Kumar Hirawat, Sunil Kumar Jain and Rajendra Kumar Surana could not be served by the inspector who submitted a report to the assessing officer of the respondent/assessee. Thereafter, the assessing officer of the respondent/assessee communicated reasons f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The CIT(Appeals) misguided itself to assume as if it was a satisfaction note recorded by the assessing officer of the searched person. The ITAT examined the entire matter and recorded findings of fact in paragraphs 5.1 and 7 of the impugned order that "In the instant case satisfaction was to be recorded by the assessing officer of the UIC Group where the search was conducted but in the instant case in hand satisfaction has been recorded by the assessing officer having jurisdiction over the assessee". 8. It has also been found by the ITAT that the procedure as prescribed in Section 158BD i.e. for handing over of documents by the Assessing Officer of the searched person to the Assessing Officer of the respondent/assessee, were also not fol....