Adarsh Kumar Vs. Dy. CIT (ITAT Delhi)
Recording of satisfaction by AO of “person searched” is a condition precedent for AO of “other person” to acquire jurisdiction and unless jurisdictional condition is satisfied, there can be no question of making assessment or reassessment in the case of such other person.
Settled position of law is that so far as the assessing officer of the “searched person” is concerned, he has to only record a satisfaction that documents seized “belong” or “belongs to” other person. The assessing officer in his capacity as assessing officer of searched person is not concerned with initiation of proceedings u/s 153C of the Act or for making assessment against the “other person” because that can be done by assessing officer in his capacity as assessing officer of “other person”. In the present as is evident from the language of “Satisfaction Note” it has been recorded by A.O. in his capacity as assessing officer of the assessee i.e. the other person and not as the assessing officer of the searched person. Thus the pre-requisite of recording satisfaction by the assessing officer in his capacity as assessing officer of “searched person” has not been fulfilled.
As evident from the language of “Satisfaction Note” it had been recorded by AO in his capacity as AO of the assessee, i.e., the other person and not as AO of the searched person. Thus the pre- requisite of recording satisfaction by AO in his capacity as AO of “searched person” had not been fulfilled and, therefore, proceeding initiated under section 153C were quashed.
