Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Hotel Sonam And Smart Bar

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPURI.T.A. No.101/2011,I.T.A. No.102/2011 I.T.A. No.103/2011, I.T.A. No.104 /2011, I.T.A. No.105 /2011,I.T.A. No.106/2011, I.T.A. No.107/2011 Commissioner of Income Tax …..Appellant Versus M/s Hotel Sonam and Smart Bar ….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 : 02.07.2015 Date 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 six separate assessment years i.e. 1998-99, 1999-2000,2000-01, 2001-02 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 bearing I.T.A.Nos.101, 107, 104, 102, 105, 103 and 106 of 2011 respectively.Moreover, these appeals emanate from a common order passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, at Indore dated 28.2.2011. Since common substantial questions of law have beenframed in these appeals, the same were heard analogously and,therefore, are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2.These appeals have been admitted only on two substantial:-questions of law, 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 assesse) and thus was not required to recordany satisfaction for initiating proceedings u/s 153C in caseof 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 substantial questions of law, on which these appeals wereadmitted, have been elaborately dealt with in the companion appealsheard analogously being I.T.A. No.44/2011 and other companioncases, even these appeals must fail for the same reasons. 4.Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. (A.M. Khanwilkar) Chief JusticeAnchal (K.K.Trivedi) Judge