CIT Vs. UMESH CHANDRA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revenue claims to be aggrieved by an order of the ITAT (hereafter referred to as "the Tribunal") dated 20.11.2009. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, rejected the Revenue's appeal.

(2.) A search was carried-out in the premises of Manoj Aggarwal on 03.08.2000; he was issued with notice under Section 158BC pursuant to which he filed revised return for the block period 1991-92 to 2001- 02. The assessment in his case (hereafter referred to as "the main assessee") was completed on 29.08.2002. On 14.07.2003, apparently the Assessing Officer (AO) in the present case dealing with the respondents' assessments - was supplied with information by the DCIT Central Circle-3. The assessee was concededly a third party and not the subject of search and seizure under Section 132. The notice was issued even later, on 14.10.2004. Apparently, the notice was served with some difficulty on 14.06.2005 to the assessee under Section 158BD. Thereafter, the assessment was completed on 30.06.2007 and an addition to the tune of '1.09 crores was sought to be made. The assessee appealed to the CIT on diverse grounds, including inter alia, that the notice issued under Section 158BD to him was beyond the time prescribed. The first appeal succeeded before the CIT (Appeals). The Revenue unsuccessfully appealed to the Tribunal.

(3.) The CIT (Appeals) accepted the assessee's appeal inter alia holding as follows: