ITA No.130 of 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. ITA No. 130 of 2005 Date of decision: 4.8.2010 Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Ludhiana -----Appellant Vs. Sh.Girdhari Lal Bassi ----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Krishan Kumar Mehta, Advocate for the revenue. Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the respondent-assessee. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This order will dispose of ITA Nos.130 and 133 of 2005 as common question of law is involved. Facts have been taken from ITA No.130 of 2005. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) against order dated 5.10.2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench ‘B’, Chandigarh in ITA No.1065/Chandi/96 for the block period 1.4.1985 to 11.8.1995, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- “Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law in cancelling the order passed under section 158BC holding that there was no warrant under section 132(1) of the IT Act ignoring the fact that the order was passed by invoking the provisions of section 158BD for which execution of warrant was not a per- requisite?” The assessee is Karta of HUF. Search and seizure operation was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 11.8.1995. From the 1 ITA No.130 of 2005 materials seized, it was found that the assessee had made a deposit of Rs.10 lacs on 20.3.1995 in his bank account. The assessee filed return for the block period from 1.4.1985 to 11.8.1995 declaring nil income. On being confronted with the undisclosed deposit in the bank account, the assessee in his statement dated 14.8.1996 surrendered the amount for being taxed. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer assessed the amount as undisclosed income. On appeal, addition was deleted, inter-alia, on the ground that there being no search warrant in the name of the assessee, provisions of section 158BC of the Act were not attracted. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the revenue challenges the finding recorded by the Tribunal as erroneous in law by submitting that order under section 158BC was justified even in absence of search warrants being in the name of the assessee. From the material found during the search, liability of the assessee was clearly established. Learned counsel relies upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manish Maheshwari v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and another, (2007) 289 ITR 341. 5. Learned counsel for the assessee relies upon judgment of Bombay High Court in CIT v. Tirupati Oil Corporation, (2001) 248 ITR 194 and judgment of Delhi High Court in CIT v. Pushpa Rani, (2007) 289 ITR 328. 6. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the assessee that satisfaction in terms of Section 158BD was duly recorded before completion of assessment i.e. on 14.9.1995 which fact has been omitted by the Tribunal from consideration as stated in para 3 of the memo of appeal. The Assessing Officer, was thus, justified in proceeding under section 158BD, even though the said section has not been mentioned in the order of 2 ITA No.130 of 2005 assessment. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the assessee are distinguishable as therein satisfaction was not recorded in terms of section 158BD of the Act. In Manish Maheshwari, it has been held that if satisfaction is duly recorded, the person other than searched person can also be proceeded against under Section 158BD of the Act. Accordingly, the question has to be answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Ordered accordingly. 7. The appeal is allowed and order of the Tribunal is set aside. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge August 4, 2010 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge 3