Brief Facts of the case-
♠ The subject appeals are filed on similar grounds and accordingly have been discharged by a single order.
♠ The present appeal has been received on limited remit by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which had by its judgment reported as CIT V. Calcutta Knitwear (2014) 362 ITR 673 (SC) directed examination of the limited question as to whether opinion formation, in terms of Section 158BB of the Income Tax Act, and the time within which it had to be recorded was complied with.
♠ A search was conducted on 3.8.2000 in the premises of Sh. Manoj Aggarwal. This led to the seizure of various documents and other materials; even the statement was recorded under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act.
♠ The present assessees were issued with a notice on 22.03.2004 by his assessing officer. It was alleged by the revenue that the notice was on account of opinion formation in terms of Section 158BB of Sh. Manoj Aggarwal’s assessing officer.
The relevant extract of the letter sent by the assessing officer of Manoj Aggarwal was as follows:
“1) Various diaries have been seized from the possession of Sh. Manoj Aggarwal which establish that Radhey Shyam Bansal is a mediator for providing accommodation book entries by Sh. Manoj Aggarwal. The quantum of transaction done by him as per these documents is given in Annexure-A. Photocopies of these paper are enclosed in Annexure-B.
2) There are evidences of cash having been received by Mr. Manoj Aggarwal from Radhey Shyam Bansal.The summary of the amounts so received as per various seized documents is given in Annexure-C. The photocopies of these documents are provided as per Annexure-D.”
Question of fact and law
♠ Whether the communication/ satisfaction letter was issued within time specified?
♠ Whether the communication/ satisfaction letter can be regarded as “satisfaction” as required under Section 158BD?
Contention of the revenue
The satisfaction for initiating proceedings under Section 158BD was recorded by the AO making assessment in the case of Shri Manoj Aggarwal and M/s Friends Portfolio (P) Ltd. on 29th Aug., 2002 also i.e. on the date of passing assessment order dt. 29th Aug., 2002.
Contention of Assessee
The assessee contended that the note was antedated and is accordingly not valid. He tried to substantiate his argument by demonstrating the following:
