COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. ALKA BHANDARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeals have to be decided pursuant to a remittal and directions of the Supreme Court in its judgment reported as CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhiana : 362 ITR 673 (SC). The Court in its judgment had directed as follows:

(2.) IN the present case, the ITAT originally had accepted the contentions of the assessee that the satisfaction note recorded, in their case was delayed and also had, inter alia, recorded that the satisfaction note did not accord with the requirements of Section 158BD as per the judgment of Supreme Court reported as CIT vs. Manish Maheshwari : (2007) 289 ITR 341 (SC). In both the cases the facts are common and are discussed hereinafter.

(3.) SINCE the limitation period for completion of block assessment, or in the case of searched persons as well as the third party who is issued notice is two years, it is reasonable to assume that the revenue can be given latitude of six months which can be considered as "immediate" or immediately proximate in point of time. In the present case, the six month period expired on 28.02.2003; the satisfaction note was recorded on 06.03.2003 and the notice was issued more than 3 1/2 months after lapse of the date i.e. 18.06.2003.