IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. ITA No.531 of 2009 Date of decision: 26.7.2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula -----Appellant. Vs. Shri Ashok Kumar and others -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr.Standing Counsel for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh dated 26.2.2009 in IT/SS A No.17/Chandi/ 2008 for the block period ending on 14.9.1999 claiming following substantial questions of law:- “1.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal is right in law in holding that the office note dated 21.5.2001 which was appended to assessment order passed under section 158 BC in the case of searched person Shri Anil Goel alias Dalal, does not constitute a satisfaction notice within the parameter of section 158 BD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the respondent-assessee who advanced money through the searched person; I.T.A. No.531 of 2009 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal is right in law in holding that there has been delay in recording of satisfaction prior to issue of notice under section 158 BD of the Act, even when the satisfaction was duly recorded vide office note dated 21.5.2001 appended below the assessment order under section 158BC of the Act passed in the case of the searched persons Shri Anil Kumar Goel alias Dalal; 3.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was right in law in upholding the learned CIT(A)’s order quashing the assessment order on the ground of delayed recording of satisfaction as required under section 158BD of the Act, even when such satisfaction was not required being the Assessing Officer for the searched person as well as for the other person including the respondent asasessee, to be the one and the same?” 2. Learned counsel for the revenue states that the matter is covered by judgment of this Court dated 28.2.2011 in I.T.A. No.22 of 2008 CIT v. M/s Mukta Metal Works, wherein all the above questions have been answered in favour of the revenue after hearing the parties and the matter has been remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision. 3. Even though ordinarily we would have issued notice to the assessees, we consider it to be unnecessary having regard to the fact that the matter is covered and is being remanded to the Tribunal. 4. Accordingly, while disposing of this appeal in terms of above order, we remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh decision on 2 I.T.A. No.531 of 2009 merits in accordance with law after hearing learned counsel for the parties. 5. Since this order is being passed without notice to the assesses, for the reason mentioned above, we make it clear that if respondent-assessee is aggrieved by this order, he will be at liberty to move this Court for appropriate orders. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 26, 2011 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ‘gs’ JUDGE 3