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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/72/2011HC Madhya Pradesh10 July 2015Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE3 pages
For Petitioner: Sanjeev Tuli
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeals must fail for the reasons stated in a separate judgment concerning companion appeals (I.T.A. No.44/2011 and others) that were disposed of on the same day. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Department. The specific reasoning for the dismissal, as it pertains to the substantial questions of law, is not detailed within this judgment but is referenced as being covered in the companion judgments. Therefore, the finding on each issue is that the appeals failed, leading to the dismissal of the assessment proceedings. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appellant) against M/s Mech & Fab Industries (Respondent) concerning seven assessment years: 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, and 2006-07. The appeals arose from a common order dated December 29, 2010, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Indore Bench. The High Court admitted these appeals on two substantial questions of law. The judgment notes that these appeals were heard analogously with other companion appeals and would be disposed of based on the reasoning in a separate judgment delivered on the same day.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide two substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the CIT(A)'s order quashing assessment proceedings under Section 153C, on the ground that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not recorded his satisfaction, even though the AO assessing the searched person had jurisdiction over the assessee and thus was not required to record satisfaction for initiating proceedings under Section 153C. 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the quashing of assessment proceedings under Section 153C, on the ground that the AO had not recorded his satisfaction in writing, by relying on the Supreme Court decision in Manish Maheshwari vs. ACIT, which was in the context of Section 158BD and not Section 153C. The Assessee's contentions, as implied by the questions, were that the assessment proceedings under Section 153C were liable to be quashed due to the AO's failure to record satisfaction. The Revenue's contention, as implied by the questions, was that the AO was not required to record satisfaction in such circumstances, or that the reliance on Manish Maheshwari was misplaced.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 158BD

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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?”

3.

As the substantial questions of law, on which these appeals were admitted, have been elaborately dealt with in the companion appeals heard analogously being I.T.A. No.44/2011 and other 3 companion cases, which have been disposed of today by a separate judgment, even these appeals must fail for the reasons stated in that judgment. 4. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. (A.M. Khanwilkar) (K.K.Trivedi) Chief Justice Judge Anchal

More judgments on Section 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →