- (1.) All the appeals have been filed under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the common judgment and order dated April 29, 2009, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow, in various appeals for the assessment years mentioned above. As the facts and circumstances in all the appeals are identical, so all the appeals are decided by this common judgment for the sake of convenience. All the appeals were admitted with the following substantial questions of law by various orders including the order dated February 24, 2010: (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by incorrect interpretation of section 153C of the Income-tax Act which only prescribes the procedure to be adopted in a situation where the Assessing Officer having the books of account of other person does not have the jurisdiction over such person whereas in the case of the assessee the books were already handed over to the Assessing Officer who issued the notice after recording satisfaction thereby, meeting all the substantive requirements of law? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has wrongly relied on the judgment of the apex court in Manish Maheshwari v. Asst. CIT, 2007 289 ITR 341 where the Assessing Officer of the person searched and the Assessing Officer of the other person were different whereas in the instant case the Assessing Officer of the person searched and the other person are one and the same and, therefore, the requirement of handing over the books to the Assessing Officer of the other person has no relevance? (iii) Whether the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse inasmuch as it is contrary to the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Digvijay Chemicals Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, 2001 248 ITR 381 wherein the court has clearly held that the even recording of satisfaction in writing for initiating proceedings under section 158BD which is identical with the provisions of section 153C, is not mandatory? (iv) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse inasmuch as it has not adjudicated the ground taken by the Revenue in appeal questioning the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer by the assessee much after the time permitted under section 124(3)(b) of the Income-tax Act?
(2.) The brief facts of the cases are that the assessee is a registered firm consisting of two partners, namely, Sri Siraj Iqbal and Smt. Farjana Siraj engaged in the business of running of hospital, building and educational institutions. On November 10, 2005, a search was conducted at the business premises of Sri Siraj Iqbal as well as at various business premises of the assessees. On September 28, 2006, the books of account were handed-over to the Assessing Officer to pass assessment orders. The Assessing Officer issued notice under section 153C of the Act. Later, the assessment orders were passed for the assessment years mentioned above under section 153C /143(3) of the Act.
(3.) Aggrieved with the assessment orders, the assessees have filed the first appeals before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who, vide his orders including the order dated December 19, 2008, quashed the assessment orders. Being aggrieved, the Department filed second appeals, which were dismissed. Still not being satisfied, the Department has filed these appeals.;