- (1.) The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" against the order dated 11.4.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" relating to the Block Period ending 25.4.2000. The Revenue has proposed the following questions, said to be the substantial question of law arising out of order of the Tribunal:- 1.That the ITAT has committed substantial error of law by annulling the asstt.Order relying upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Maheshwari vs. ACIT, 2007 289 ITR 341 as the facts of the instant case is different from the facts before the Apex Court. In the present case the jurisdiction over both the person i.e. the person searched and the other person, who is the owner of the documents or assets found lies with the same Assessing Officer. 2.That the ITAT has failed to appreciate that under Section 158 BD the satisfaction of Assessing Officer is required where the jurisdiction over the owner of the documents or assets found lies with another Assessing Officer and provides for handing over of the documents or assets to the latter who then assumes the jurisdiction to proceed u/s.158BC. In the instant case the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over both the persons was the one and the same. Hence, the requirement of recording satisfaction was not necessary and he himself rightly proceeded u/s 158 BC of I.T Act, 1961. 3.That the Hon'ble ITAT has failed to appreciate the provisions u/s 292B which clearly states that if any notice or assessment is in substance and effect in conformity with or according to intent and purpose of the act, the same cannot be invalidated merely for reason of any mistakes, omission or defect in such notice or return.
(2.) The question raised herein is as to whether in the absence of search/survey having been made in the business/residential premises of the assessee, whether any assessment under Section 158 BC of the Act can be made against such person or not, this Court in Income Tax Appeal No.501 of 2008, Commissioner Income Tax vs. Devi Saran decided on 1.12.2011 has held as follows:- "We are of the considered opinion that the provision of Section 158BC of the Act applies to a case where search is made in the business premises of the assessee or requisition has been made in his name whereas the provision of Section 158 BD of the Act applies to a case where any material found in that search or requisition relates to any other person. As in the present case the requisition was issued in the name of the respondent-assessee and the amount which was found belonging to the assessee in that very requisition, the provisions of Section 158BD was not at all attracted and the view taken by the Tribunal does not suffer from any error of law. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed."
(3.) This Court has held that the provision of Section 158BC of the Act shall apply only in respect of that assessee in whose business/residential premises a search or survey has been made and not otherwise.;