M.R.SHAH, J. - (1.) As common question of law and facts arise in this group of appeals, and are with respect to common assessee, but with respect to different assessment years, all these appeals are being decided together by this common Judgment and Order.
(2.) For the sake of convenience, the facts of Civil Appeals arising from Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 8449-84502017 arising from I.T.A. No. 4532016 and Review Petition No. 162017 for Assessment Year 2008-09 are stated and considered. The facts in nutshell are as under 2.1 By virtue of the authorization of the Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Chandigarh, a search and seizure operation under Section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was carried out on 89.04.2010 at the residentialbusiness premises of Shri Tejwant Singh and Shri Ved Prakash Bharti group of companies at Karnal, Panipat and Delhi. A survey under Section 133A of the Act was also carried out at the business premises of Ms Super Mall (P) Limited - the assessee, at Karnal and New Delhi. That during the course of the search on 89.04.2010 at the residence of Shri Ved Prakash Bharti, a Director in the assessee company - Ms Super Mall (P) Limited, pen drive was found and seized from the vehicle parked in front of Shri Ved Prakash Bharti's residence. That some documents were seized after taking out the print from the above said pen drive. The said documents contained the details of the cash receipts on sale of shopsoffices at Ms Super Mall, Karnal, also besides other concerns. That as a consequence of the aforesaid search and seizure operation, a notice was issued to the assessee - Ms Super Mall (P) Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Assessee') under Section 153C of the Act by the Assessing Officer. At this stage, it is required to be noted that co-incidentally it so happened that the Assessing Officer of the assessee and the Assessing Officer of the search persons - Tejwant Singh and Ved Prakash Bharti was the same. The assessee filed its return for the assessment year 2008-09. The assessment for the assessment year 2008-09 was finalised by the Assessing Officer and additions were made in the assessment year 2008-09. The assessment order was the subject matter of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessment order was challenged mainly on the ground that the satisfaction note recorded under Section 153C of the Act in respect of the assessee, i.e., a third party, was invalid. That the learned CIT (Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal. However, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'ITAT') allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee and held that the satisfaction note recorded under Section 153C of the Act in respect of the assessee, i.e., a third party, was invalid. In the appeal before the High Court, by the impugned Judgment and Order, the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the Revenue and has observed and held that there was a compliance of Section 153C of the Act. The High Court also observed that the Assessing Officer was justified in recording the satisfaction that the documents so seized belonged to the assessee. Consequently, the High Court has set aside the order passed by the learned ITAT and remanded the matter to the learned ITAT to hear the appeals afresh on merits. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the learned ITAT set aside the order passed by the learned CIT(Appeals) solely on the satisfaction note being invalid and did not enter into the merits. Therefore, the High Court set aside the learned ITAT's decision with respect to satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer under Section 153C of the Act. Hence, the present appeal. 2.2 Therefore, the short question which is posed for the consideration of this Court is with respect to the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer, as required under Section 153C of the Act.
(3.) Shri R.P. Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the assessee has made the following submissions 3.1 That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has materially erred in observing and holding that the Assessing Officer has complied with the provisions of Section 153C of the Act; 3.2 That in the present case there was no satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer of the searched party. That as per the scheme of Section 153C of the Act, the Assessing Officer of searched person, i.e., the Directors in this case has to be firstly satisfied that any money, jewellery or other valuable articles, books of accounts or documents seized or requisitioned belong to, i.e., in this case, the assessee company, a person other than the person referred to under Section 153A of the Act. It is submitted that thereafter and on being satisfied that the books of accounts or documents or assets so seized or requisitioned shall be handed over by the Assessing Officer of searched person, i.e., the Directors in this case to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person i.e., the assessee company. That the aforesaid requirements before issuing notice under Section 153C of the Act are held to be mandatory by this Court in catena of decisions. Reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Calcutta Knitwears, (2014) 6 SCC 444; decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsi Food Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2014) 367 ITR 112 (Delhi); decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Incoem Tax v. Bipinchandra Chimanlal Doshi, (2017) 395 ITR 632 (Gujarat); and the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Ganpati Fincap Service Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2017) 395 ITR 692 (Delhi); 3.3 That even the CBDT also issued a Circular explaining the requirements to be followed by the Assessing Officer before issuing notice under Section 153C of the Act. That the said Circular has been referred to and considered by the Delhi High Court in the case of Ganpati Fincap (supra) and after considering the various decisions of different High Courts, it is observed that when proceedings are proposed to be initiated under Section 153C of the Act against the other person, it has to be preceded by a satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer of the searched person. It is further observed that he will record in his satisfaction note that the seized documents belong to other person. That in the present case there was no satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer of the searched person. That there is a non-compliance of the provisions of Section 153C of the Act as well as even the Circular issued by the CBDT and therefore the learned ITAT rightly set aside the assessment order. 3.4 Making the above submissions and relying upon the aforesaid decisions, it is prayed to allow the present appeals. ;