Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Hotel Paradise

1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR I.T.A. No.93/2011, I.T.A. No.95/2011 I.T.A. No.97/2011, I.T.A.98/2011 I.T.A.No.100/2011 Commissioner of Income Tax …..Appellant Versus M/s Hotel Paradise ….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 three separate assessment years i.e. 1999-2000, 2001-02,2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 bearing I.T.A. Nos.95, 100, 93, 98 and97 of 2011 respectively. Moreover, these appeals emanate from acommon order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IndoreBench, at Indore dated 28.2.2011. Since common substantial questions of law have been pressed in these appeals, the same wereheard analogously and, therefore, are being disposed of by thiscommon judgment. 2.The two substantial questions of law were pressed at the :-hearing, 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 assesse? (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.As the aforesaid substantial questions of law have beenelaborately dealt with in the companion appeals heard analogouslybeing I.T.A. No.44/2011 and other companion cases, even theseappeals must fail for the same reasons. 4.Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. (A.M. Khanwilkar) Chief Justice (K.K.Trivedi) Judge