Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: G: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA
[2] to 4004 /Del/2018 ITA Nos. 1440 to 1444 /Del/2021 2. When the matter was called for hearing in these group cases, the learned counsel for the assessee at the outset pointed out that all the assessment orders in different appeals captioned above are vitiated in law for the reason that notice under section 153C issued in these cases precedes the corresponding satisfaction recorded in these cases. For instance in the case of Shri Vishnu Overseas P Ltd. cases, the notice under section 153C has been issued on 17.12.2015, whereas the corresponding satisfaction contemplated under section 153C has been recorded on 21.12.2015. Similarly, in the cases pertaining to Shri Vishnu Eatables India Ltd., the notice for assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C has been issued on 04.12.2015, whereas the satisfaction contemplated under section 153C has been recorded subsequently on 21.12.2015. The learned counsel thus contends that the jurisdiction assumed under section 153C by issuance of notice thereon stands vitiated owing to absence of satisfaction on the date of issuance of notice under section 153C. The learned counsel submits that subsequent recording of satisfaction under section 153C is of no consequence and is not capable of making good the inherent jurisdictional defect. The learned counsel thus submits that consequent assessment orders passed based on such non-est notices issued under section 153C in respective cases are clearly bad in law and no cause of action arises to the revenue in pursuance of such non-est assessment orders in all the captioned appeals.
On being confronted to the revenue on the aforesaid contention, the learned DR for the revenue presented the assessment records for the perusal of the bench to appreciate the factual position. The learned DR for the revenue also referred to the respective order sheets duly signed by the Assessing Officer and submitted that as per these order sheets, the Assessing Officer has asserted that the requisite satisfaction note was duly recorded prior to the issue of notice under section 153C of the Act. The learned DR thus assessee submitted that the actual date supposedly put on the satisfaction note are merely a typographical error and should be read in conjunction with the assertions made in the respective order sheets.
We have carefully considered the rival submissions on the point in issue. At the outset, we refer to a tabular statement filed by the assessee showing the factual matrix ITA wise.
Shri Vishnu Overseas (P) Ltd. AY 2008-09 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Appeal No. 3999/Del/2018 4000/Del/2018 4001/Del2018 4002/Del/2018 4003/Del/2018 4004/Del/2018 [3] to 4004 /Del/2018 ITA Nos. 1440 to 1444 /Del/2021 S.No. Particulars 1. Panchanama 17.01.2014 dated 17.12.2015 17.12.2015 17.12.2015 17.12.2015 2. Notice issued 17.12.2015 17.12.2015 u/s. 153C of the Act 3. Satisfaction 21.12.2015 21.12.2015 recorded by the A.O. of the person search and of the assessee (common satisfaction) Gr. No.2 to 4 Gr. No.2 to 4 Gr. No.2 to 4 Gr. No.2 to 4 4. Grounds to Gr. No.2 to 4 Gr. No.2 to 4 challenge the impugned assessment order as invalid because of non est notice issued u/s. 153C of the Act where satisfaction was recorded later as above.
Shri Vishnu Eatables (India) Ltd AY 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2013-14 Appeal No. 1440/Del/2021 1441/Del/2021 1442/Del/2021 1443/Del/2021 1440/Del/2021 S.No. Particulars 1. Panchanama dated 17.01.2014 2. Notice issued u/s. 153C 04.12.2015 04.12.2015 04.12.2015 04.12.2015 04.12.2015 of the Act 10.12.2015 10.12.2015 10.12.2015 10.12.2015 3. Satisfaction recorded 10.12.2015 by the A.O. of the person search and of the assessee (common satisfaction) Gr. No.2 Gr. No.2 Gr. No.2 Gr. No.2 4. Grounds to challenge Gr. No.2 the impugned assessment order as invalid because of non est notice issued u/s. 153C of the Act where satisfaction was recorded later as above.