| The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 2642 (Del-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 158BD
Satisfaction under section 158BD had to be recorded by AO of the searched person and not by AO of other person, i.e., assessee, even if AO of searched person and assessee was same, it is a mandate as per provisions of the Act and could not be overlooked, therefore, AO did not have valid jurisdiction to frame assessment.
|
Search and seizure - Block assessment - Non-recording of satisfaction by AO of searched party - AO of other person, i.e., assessee and that of searched party being same
AO based on search conducted in case of Vatika Group, initiated proceedings under section 158BD in case of other person, i.e., assessee contended that no satisfaction had been recorded by AO of the searched party. As per revenue, satisfaction recorded by AO was incorpoated in order sheet and not in the notice. and further, AO of the searched party and that of assessee was same.Held: Satisfaction under section 158BD had to be recorded by the AO of the searched person, and not by AO of other person, i.e., assessee, therefore, even if AO of searched person and assessee was same, it is a mandate as per provisions of the Act and could not be overlooked, therefore, AO did not have valid jurisdiction to frame assessment.
Relied:Manish Maheshwari v. Asstt. CIT (2007) 289 ITR 341 (SC) : 2007 TaxPub(DT) 1020 (SC), CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears (2014) 362 ITR 673 (SC) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 1547 (SC), HHH, the Nizam Supplemental Family Trust v. CIT (2000) 242 ITR 381 (SC) : 2000 TaxPub(DT) 1245 (SC)CIT v. KLM Royal Touch Airlines v. CIT (2007) 292 ITR 49 (Del) : 2007 TaxPub(DT) 897 (Del-HC), New Delhi Auto Finance (P) Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (2008) 300 ITR 83 (Del) : 2008 TaxPub(DT) 1691 (Del-HC) and CIT v. Mahesh Maheshwari (2007) 289 ITR 341 (SC) : 2007 TaxPub(DT) 1020 (SC).
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 1998-99 to 2003-04
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|