Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. M/S Mech & Feb Industries

1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR I.T.A. No.66/2011, I.T.A. No.67/2011 I.T.A. No.68/2011, I.T.A. No.69/2011 I.T.A. No.70/2011, I.T.A. No.71/2011 I.T.A. No.72/2011 Commissioner of Income Tax …..Appellant Versus M/s Mech & Fab Industries ….Respondent ============================================= Coram: Hon’ble Shri Justice A. M. Khanwilkar, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi, J. Whether approved for reporting : No ============================================= Shri Sanjay Lal, Advocate for the appellant/Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal. Shri A. P. Shrivastava, Advocate with Shri Sapan Usrethe, Advocate for the respondent. ============================================= Reserved On : 02.07.2015 Date of Decision : 10.07.2015 J U D G M E N T { 10th July, 2015} Per: A.M. Khanwilkar, Chief Justice: These appeals are filed by the Department qua single assessee regarding seven separate assessment years i.e. 2000-01, 2001-02, 2 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 bearing I.T.A. Nos.66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71 and 72 of 2011 respectively. Moreover, these appeals emanate from a common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, at Indore dated 29.12.2010. Since common substantial questions of law have been framed in these appeals, the same were heard analogously and, therefore, are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. These appeals have been admitted only on two substantial questions of law, which read thus:- “(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A) quashing the assessment proceedings on the ground that the AO had not recorded, his satisfaction even which the AO making the assessment of searched person was himself having jurisdiction over ‘such other person’ (i.e. the assesse) and thus was not required to record any satisfaction for initiating proceedings u/s 153C in case of the assesse? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the quashing of the assessment proceedings u/s 153C on the ground that the AO had not recorded, in writing, his satisfaction, by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Maheshwari vs. ACIT, 289 ITR 341 which was delivered in the context of section 158BD and not section 153C of the I.T. Act?”