AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM:
The instant M.A. has been filed seeking recall of the order dated 06.06.2025 passed by the Bench as some of the grounds taken by the Assessee were not adjudicated. Upon perusal of the order passed by the Bench, it appears that the contention made by the Ld. AR is correct. Since the matter was decided on the jurisdictional issue, the remaining grounds were not adjudicated. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, we, therefore, accept the contention of the Ld. AR and allow the M.A.
In Ground Nos. 2 & 3, it is contended that the order passed by the Ld. A.O. under Section 153C is illegal, bad in law, and liable to be quashed particularly when the satisfaction so recorded is contrary to law and is not in accordance with the CBDT Circular dated 31.12.2015, which was in force on the relevant date. Thua, the satisfaction has been recorded without complying the statutory conditions neitherin accordance with the guidelines issued by the CBDT as the crux of the matter. In this regard, we have considered the relevant CBDT Circular, as follows:
It is the case of theasssessee that the satisfaction recorded under section 153C of the Act is contrary to the binding guidelines and the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT versus Calcutta Knitwears, reported in Civil appeal No. 3958 of 2014 dated 12.03.2014, wherein it was held that recording of satisfaction note is a jurisdictional prerequisite. On the basis of that judgement, the CBDT recognises the satisfaction of the assessing officer of the search person may be recorded only at one of the following stages:
At the time or along with initiationof proceedings under Section 153A of the Act against the searched person.
ii) In the course of assessment processing under section 153A, against the searched person
iii) immediately after completion of the assessment proceedings under Section 153A, in the case of the searched person. As the search was conducted in the instant case on 03.01.2018, the satisfaction of the assessing officer of the search person was recorded only on 13.05.2021 and this satisfaction was not shown to have been recorded at any of the legally permissible stages as the crux of the submissions made by the Learner counsel appearing for the assessee is found to be acceptable. Neither the assessment order, nor the order records that the date of completion of the assessment of the searched persons or returns any findings as to whether the satisfaction recorded on 13.05.2021 was recorded during such assessment processing or immediately after their completion as envisaged under the CBDT circular dated 31.12.2015.
Thus, having heard the Ld. Counsels appearing for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the issue raised by the Ld. AR, it is observed that the matter iscovered by the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Calcutta Knitwears in Civil appeal No. 3958 of 2014 dated 12.03.2014. The revenue has not been able to justify that the satisfaction recorded was during the course of assessment processing or immediately thereafter, and thereforethe observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is squarely applicable to the present case. Accordingly, following judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we hold that the satisfaction recorded under Section 153C of the Act is found to be not sustainable and thus quashed. Consequently, the reassessment order is also quashed.
The Miscellaneous Application filed by the Assessee is allowed.
The appeal referred by the assesses is allowed.