ACIT CERCLE CHHINDWARA Vs. PINKU TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CALLING in question tenability of an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur in the matter of interfering with the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer and the Appellate Authority mainly on the ground that recording of satisfaction and reason before proceeding to conduct block assessment for undisclosed income under Section 158BD has not been recorded, this appeal is filed and the only substantial question of law indicated in the appeal is that "recording of reasons was not necessary and in the facts and circumstances of this case, recording of reasons is borne out from the communication available on record".

(2.) SHRI S.A. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the appellant invites our attention to the judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Panchajanyam Management Agencies & Services reported in : (2011) Vol. 333 ITR 281 to say that the Kerala High Court in the aforesaid case has considered the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Maheshwari Vs. Asstt. CIT - : (2007) 208 CTR (SC) 97 and has distinguish the case.

(3.) WE have considered the contention and we find that Supreme Court in the case of Manish Maheshwari (supra) has considered the conditions precedent that are to be followed as a mandatory requirement before initiating proceedings u/s. 158 BD and the Supreme Court deals with the matter in the following manner: -