Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Anil Traders

1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR I.T.A. No.159 of 2011 I.T.A.No.160 of 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax ……Appellant Versus M/s Anil Traders …..Respondent ============================================= Coram: Hon’ble Shri Justice A. M. Khanwilkar, Chief JusticeHon’ble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi, J. Whether approved for reporting : No ============================================= Shri Sanjay Lal, Advocate for the appellant/Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Jabalpur.None for the respondent. ============================================= Reserved On : 02.07.2015Date of Decision : 10.07.2015 J U D G M E N T {10[th] July, 2015} Per: A.M. Khanwilkar, Chief Justice: These appeals are filed by the department qua single assesseeregarding same assessment year i.e. 2003-04 against the commonjudgment dated 31.05.2011 passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal Indore Bench, Indore in I.T.A.No.203/Jab/2008 (A.Y. 2003-04) and I.T.A. No.171/Jab/2008 (A.Y. 2003-04) in respect of sameassessee. I.T.A.No.203/Jab/2008 was filed by the department and I.T.A. No.171/Jab/2008 was filed by the assessee against the ordersdated 29.03.2006 passed by the Assessing Officer and dated24.03.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).Both the appeals were disposed of by common judgment passed bythe Tribunal. The department has filed appeals against the saidcommon judgment of the Tribunal. 2.I.T.A.No.159/2011 was listed on 23.11.2011, when it wasordered to be listed along with I.T.A.No.157/2011 and 163/2011.None of these appeals form part of the group cases, heard analogouslyand decided by separate judgment today. The appeal was again listedon 17.04.2014 when statement of the counsel for the department wasrecorded with I.T.A.No.93/2011 involves identical substantialquestions of law and has been admitted. On the basis of thisstatement, the appeal was ordered to be listed along withI.T.A.No.93/2011. The said appeal bearing I.T.A.No.93/2011 hasalready been decided by separate judgment in which only twosubstantial questions are raised, which read thus :- “(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding theorder of the CIT(A) quashing the assessment proceedingson the ground that the AO had not recorded, his satisfactioneven which the AO making the assessment of searchedperson was himself having jurisdiction over such otherperson (i.e. the assessee) and thus was not required torecord any satisfaction for initiating proceedings u/s 153Cin case of the assessee? (ii)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding thequashing of the assessment proceedings u/s 153C on theground that the AO had not recorded, in writing, hissatisfaction, by placing reliance on the decision of theHon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Maheshwarivs. ACIT, 289 ITR 341 which was delivered in the contextof section 158BD and not section 153C of the I.T. Act?” 3.The counsel appearing for the department has not argued anyother question in support of this appeal. In the present appeal alsothe department has raised substantial questions of law withreference to the issue of mandate of Section 153C of the I.T. Act.That aspect has been elaborately dealt with in the companion casesdecided today namely I.T.A.No.44/2011. For the same reasons,therefore, this appeal must fail. 3.The counsel appearing for the department has not argued anyother question in support of this appeal. In the present appeal alsothe department has raised substantial questions of law withreference to the issue of mandate of Section 153C of the I.T. Act.That aspect has been elaborately dealt with in the companion casesdecided today namely I.T.A.No.44/2011. For the same reasons,therefore, this appeal must fail. 4.As regards I.T.A.No.160/2011 filed by the department, thesituation is no different. The counsel for the department did notaddress us on any other point except the two substantial questionsof law reproduced in paragraph 2 above. Even this appeal waslisted on 22.08.2014 when it was ordered to be notified foradmission along with I.T.A.No.159/2011. Even in this appeal,other questions raised in the appeal memo have not been pressedduring the arguments. We will, therefore, proceed on the basis thatthe department has invited decision only on the two substantial questions of law which have been raised in the companion appealsand none else. The said two substantial questions of law havealready been answered against the department by a detailedjudgment rendered in I.T.A.No.44/2011. For the same reasons, eventhis appeal must fail. 5.In view of the above, both the appeals are dismissed. (A.M. Khanwilkar) Chief Justice (K.K.Trivedi) Judge Anchal