FIRST AND LANDMARK – DELHI HIGH COURT – WRIT ADMITTED IN 153C CASE OF NON SEARCHED PERSON FOR NOT SUPPLYING SATISFACTION NOTE AND STATEMENT WITH ASSESSMENT ORDER

WRIT ADMITTED IN 153C CASE OF NON SEARCHED PERSON FOR NOT SUPPLYING SATISFACTION NOTE AND STATEMENT WITH ASSESSMENT ORDER

(ii) That, although, the impugned assessment order refers to a two-stage satisfaction note, i.e., one generated by the Assessing officer (in short „AO‟), of the searched person, and the other generated by the AO of the petitioner, the petitioner has been served only with the satisfaction note, dated 31.12.2019, generated by his AO.

(iv) That the revenue has not furnished any material, whereby, Mr. Mathur, who remains unidentified up until today, can be linked to the petitioner. 4.2. In support of his plea that the power available under Section 153C needs to be exercised with care and caution, Mr. Goel has relied upon the judgement of the Supreme Court rendered in Manish Maheshwari vs. ACIT, 289 ITR 341 (SC).

6.1. The record shows that the petitioner was served with only an extract of the statement made by Mr. Prasesh Arya. Mr. Sharma, in this behalf, when queried, submitted that the crucial part of the statement was furnished to the petitioner, and therefore, the petitioner can have no grievance.

6.2. Even if we assume that, the stand taken by Mr. Sharma is sustainable, what concerns us at this stage, is the absence of any material furnished to the petitioner, which would link Mr. Mathur to him. As noticed above, the broad allegation against the petitioner is as follows: “In view of the above, the submission of the assessee is duly considered but not found acceptable. As during the course of search action u/s 132 of the I.T. Act 196 [sic: 1961] carried out in M/s JBM Group of cases on 05.10.2017, Sh. Prashesh Arya (Chief General Manager) Finance of Jai Bharat Maruti Ltd. in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the I.T. Act at this premises i.e. B-98, South City01, Gurugram based on documents/papers found and seized which is clearly mentioned above in the show cause, accepted that page no. 210 contains date wise details of the cash receipts aggregating to Rs. 4.50 crore, received in equal proportion from Sh. Surender Kumar Arya of JBM Group and Sh. Nirmal Kumar Minda of Minda Group who are directors in this company (i.e. SIPPL). That the said payments totalling to Rs. 4.50 crore as per the details noted this paper were to made to the Official Liquidator named Mr. Batta during the F.Y. 2009-10 through Mr. Mathur in order to obtain favourable court decision for evacuating the houses of labours existing on the premises of Rajpura Factory. Further, it is clearly showed the complete date wise cash payment of Rs. 4.50 crore was received by the assessee through Sh. Mathur from Sh. Prashesh Arya.”

9. Furthermore, Mr. Sharma will obtain instructions as to whether or not an assessment order has been passed qua the JBM Group and/or SIPL.