COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. SMT. SOUDHA GAFOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revenue is in appeal aggrieved by the common order passed by the Tribunal disposing of IT(S&S)A Nos. 113/Coch/2004 and 135/Coch/2004. We heard the learned senior counsel for the Revenue and the learned senior counsel for the assessee.

(2.) On facts, it is only sufficient to note that proceedings under section 158BD were initiated against the respondent assessee pursuant to a search and seizure action under section 132 against Bimbis Group of Concerns. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A), by his order dated 28th Sept., 2004, disposed of the appeal partly allowing the same. The order of the first appellant authority was challenged before the Tribunal in IT(S&S)A No. 113/Coch/2004 filed by the assessee and the Revenue also filed IT(S&S)A No. 135/Coch/2004. By the impugned order, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed on the ground that the AO did not record his satisfaction as provided under section 158BD and as laid down in the judgment of the apex Court in Manish Maheshwari v. Asstt. CIT and Anr. (2007) 208 CTR (SC) 97 : (2007) 289 ITR 341 (SC). Since the appeal of the assessee was thus allowed on the jurisdictional ground, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. It is in these circumstances, the Revenue has filed these appeals.

(3.) The questions of law framed in IT Appeal No. 1303 of 2009 are the following :