Decided on November 28,2014

Dcit Appellant
Aakash Arogya Mindir P. Ltd. Respondents


- (1.) THESE are 6 appeals filed by the Revenue against separate orders of Ld. CIT(A) all dated 23.07.2013. The assessee has also filed cross objection to the appeals filed by the Revenue wherein it has raised legal issue regarding initiation of proceedings as being bad in law and without jurisdiction. The assessee has also taken various grounds of cross objections against various observations of Ld. CIT(A). These appeals and cross objections were heard together and therefore, for the sake of convenience, a single and consolidated order is being passed. Earlier, cross objections were heard on 09.09.2014 however at the conclusion of hearing, Ld. D.R. had mentioned that she had written to A.O. for certain clarifications with regard to satisfaction note u/s. 153C, which had not yet been received, therefore she wanted some time to file the same as and when the same are received. Therefore, before dictating the order, it was considered appropriate to refix the matter, therefore, the same was refixed and was finally heard on 26.09.2014.
(2.) AT the outset, Ld. A.R. invited our attention to 1st ground of C.O. and argued that since assessee had raised legal ground for initiation of proceedings of assessment u/s. 153C these should be first disposed off before hearing the matter on merits. Ld. A.R. invited our attention to paper book pages 34 to 38 and submitted that these are copies of letters obtained by assessee under RTI from various files of assessees whose premises were searched and action was initiated u/s. 153A of the Act. It was submitted that from the letters obtained from the files of persons searched, it clearly emerges that no satisfaction note relating to other entities was available in the files of searched persons. In these circumstances, it was submitted that Hon'ble High Court in the case of DSL Properties Pvt. Ltd., 33 Taxman.com 420 and Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT in I.T.A. No. 575 and 576 has clearly held that recording of satisfaction is a pre requirement which is needed to be recorded by the A.O. of searched person and is required to be kept in the files of searched person before taking action u/s. 153C in the case of other entities. Ld. A.R. further submitted that even if A.O. is same in the case of searched person and that of other person even then separate satisfaction note is required to be recorded in both cases. In this respect, our attention was invited to facts of DSL Properties (P) Ltd. Ld. A.R. submitted that it is an admitted fact that satisfaction note was not recorded by the A.O. of searched person. Ld. A.R. in view of various judgements tried to explain the provisions of Section 153C along with section 153A and it was submitted that first of all, the A.O. of searched person has to record satisfaction that some documents belong to other persons and then hand over the same to A.O. of such persons who again will record his satisfaction. It was submitted that first satisfaction by A.O. of searched persons has not been done in these cases and therefore, the assessment proceedings itself were not legal and the assessment orders itself needs to be quashed.
(3.) LD . D.R. on the other hand submitted that there is no need to record a separate satisfaction note and satisfaction can be inferred from records/order and in this respect, reliance was placed on the following case laws: i) K.M. Mehboob vs. DCIT, 76 DTR (Ker.) 449 ii) CIT vs. Panchianyam Management : 333 ITR 281 iii) Subham Javed vs. ACIT, 122 ITD 307 3.1 It was further submitted that there was no need to record satisfaction when both cases were with the same A.O. and it was submitted that in the present case, the A.O. in both the cases happened to be the same and therefore, it was argued that no separate satisfaction was required to be made and the argument taken by Ld. A.R. is hyper technical. It was submitted that technicalities and irregularities should not come in the way of administering justice to any party. Reliance in this respect was placed in the case of State Bank of Patiala vs. S.K. Sharma : (1996) AIR 1669. Without prejudice the Ld. D.R. filed a copy of letter dated 09.09.2014 written by the A.O. in which he had claimed to have enclosed satisfaction note recorded by the A.O. of such other persons Without prejudice to the above, Ld. D.R. further argued that assessee had not taken such legal grounds before Ld. CIT(A) and, therefore the assessee should not be allowed to take up such a stand at this stage. Ld. A.R. in his rejoinder submitted that such ground was taken before Ld. CIT(A) also who had summarily dismissed this ground and in this respect, our attention was invited to paper book page 25 where a copy of written submissions before Ld. CIT(A) were placed. Our specific attention was invited to para 4 -5 of such written submissions and commenting upon satisfaction note produced by Ld. D.R., the Ld. A.R. submitted that this satisfaction note as produced by Ld. D.R. relates to the satisfaction note recorded by A.O. of other person therefore, his contention that no satisfaction note was recorded by A.O. of searched persons with regard to other persons is correct. He submitted that the case law relied upon by him squarely covers the facts and circumstances of the present appeals.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.