(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the officer in charge of the proceedings under Section 158BC of the Act in case of Messrs. Chitra Publicity Company had recorded a satisfaction that in case of the present respondent-assessee proceedings under Section 158BD of the Act are required to be undertaken, despite which the Tribunal relying on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Manish Maheshwari v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Anr., reported in [(2007) 289 ITR 341 (SC)], quashed the proceedings for block assessment under Section 158BD of the Act.
On the other hand, Shri JP Shah appearing for the respondent-assessee submitted that even if no satisfaction was recorded, the order of the Tribunal could be sustained on the ground that the notice under Section 158BD of the Act did not reflect such satisfaction and even otherwise such notice was vague. Counsel relied on decision of the Delhi High Court in case of New Delhi Auto Finance P. Limited v. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, reported in [(2008) 300 ITR 83 (Delhi)].
To our mind, the question requires consideration. Tax Appeal is, therefore, admitted for consideration of following substantial question of law :-
"Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in quashing the block assessment order holding that the notice issued under Section 158BD of the Act was not valid as the same did not meet the requirement of law ?"
{Akil Kureshi, J.} {Ms.
Sonia Gokani, J.} Prakash* Top