- (1.) THIS is an appeal under S. 260A of the IT Act, 1961, against the order of the Tribunal, Delhi, dt. 31st Aug., 1999. The appeal was admitted on the following questions of law : "1. Whether the authorised officer in the case of Bhagat Industrial Corporation and R.D. Bhagat having not handed over the books of account and other papers pertaining to the appellant to the AO of the appellant in accordance with S. 132(9A) of the IT Act, 1961, such books of account and documents could not be handed over to the AO of the appellant under S. 158BD of the Act ? 2. Whether the Dy. CIT, Amritsar, had lawful satisfaction as mentioned in S. 158BD before handing over the books of account and documents to the AO of the appellant ? 2A. Whether such satisfaction is legally required to be recorded in writing ? 2B. Whether before recording such satisfaction as is mentioned in S. 158BD, the concerned officer is required to afford an opportunity of hearing to the concerned party, and whether such opportunity having not been given to the appellant, the transfer of books of account and documents was unlawful ? 3. Whether the books of account and documents pertaining to the appellant were validly handed over to the AO of the appellant ? If not, did the AO of the appellant not require the jurisdiction to make an assessment on the appellant under S. 158BA of the Act ? 4. Whether the appellant having filed affidavits of concerned persons in support of its explanation and having produced those persons before the AO for examination, if any, and the AO having not examined or cross examined them, the affidavits could be held to be unreliable ? If so or not, effect ?"
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The facts of the case are that a search was conducted in the premises of Bhagat Industrial Corporation Ltd. and Mr. R.D. Bhagat on 28th Feb., 1996. During the course of search and seizure certain documents relating to the appellant were also seized by the officer and handed over to the ITO having jurisdiction over the appellant. On the basis of this material, the AO issued a notice under S. 158BD r/w S. 158BE(2) of the IT Act requiring the assessee to furnish the return of its income. The appellant furnished nil income tax return but the AO was not satisfied with the same and added several amounts to the income of the assessee. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal to the Tribunal which was partly allowed. Hence, this second appeal.
(3.) SHRI Dhruv Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that since the officer making the seizure had no jurisdiction over the appellant he had to hand over the material seized to the AO having jurisdiction over the appellant within a period of 15 days to the seizure, and since the material was handed over after the expiry of the aforesaid period of 15 days it could not be taken into account by the AO. We do not agree with this submission. The purpose of S. 132(9A) appears to be to help the AO to make a speedy assessment, and this provision is not for the benefit of the assessee. Hence, even if the material was handed over beyond the period of 15 days it cannot be said that the said material cannot be looked into by the AO.;