Holding

A block assessment under Sections 158BC/158BD can be made only when a search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A has been effected, the Assessing Officer records satisfaction that undisclosed income belongs to the person, and the seized material is handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction; in the present case these conditions were not satisfied, so the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction.

Summary

The assessee company Mis Indore Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. was subjected to a block assessment under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act after a search was conducted at the residence of its director, Rameshwar Maheshwari, under Section 132. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 15880 but did not record any satisfaction that undisclosed income belonged to the company, nor were the seized documents handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction, and no proceeding under Section 158BC was initiated. The question before the Supreme Court was whether the Assessing Officer had jurisdiction to make the block assessment without a search under Section 132 on the assessee itself and without satisfying the statutory conditions precedent. The Court held that a block assessment can be invoked only when a search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A has been made, the Assessing Officer records satisfaction, and the seized material is transferred to the officer with jurisdiction; these conditions were not met. Consequently, the High Court’s finding of jurisdiction was set aside and the appeals were allowed, quashing the block assessment.

Issues considered

Whether the Assessing Officer had jurisdiction to make a block assessment under Section 158BC/158BD when the search was conducted on the director’s premises and not on the assessee company itself.
Whether the notice issued under Section 15880 satisfied the statutory requirement of recording the Assessing Officer’s satisfaction of undisclosed income.
Whether the conditions precedent for invoking Section 158BC/158BD – a search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A, recording of satisfaction, and hand‑over of seized material to the appropriate Assessing Officer – were fulfilled.
How a taxing statute such as the Income Tax Act must be interpreted, i.e., the principle of strict construction in favour of the taxpayer.
Whether the High Court’s view that the Assessing Officer possessed jurisdiction was legally correct.

Legislation cited

Income Tax Act, 1961s. 131, s. 132, s. 132A, s. 140, s. 142, s. 143, s. 144, s. 148, s. 15880, s. 158BC, s. 158BD, s. 2(31), s. 260-A
Income Tax Rules, 1962s. Rule 112

Subjects

block assessmentIncome Tax ActSection 158BCSection 132jurisdictionstrict constructiontax assessmentsearch and seizurecondition precedent

Judgment

MANISH MAHESHWARI A
-" v.
ASS TT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR.

FEBRUARY 23, 2007

[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] B

-(
'I(
Income Tax Act, 1961-ss. 158BD & 158BC:

Search conducted in premises belonging to Director of assessee-
Company-Severa/ incriminating documents relating to business of assessee- c
Company seized-Proceeding initiated against assessee-Company under
s. l 58BC-Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer to make block assessments-High
Court held that the Assessing Officer had the requisite jurisdiction in terms
~
of s. l 58BD rlw s.2(31)-Correctness of-Held, not correct-Notice issued to
assessee-company did not satisfy the requirements of s. l 58BD-It did not D
record any satisfaction on the part ofAssessing Officer, which was mandatory-
Documents and other assets recovered during search had not been handed
i over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction in the matter.

Interpretation of Statute-Strict construction-Taxing statute-Held:
Has to be construed strictly. E
Search was conducted in the premises of one of the Directors of
assessee-company. Several incriminating documents relating to business of
the company were seized. Proceedings were initiated against the company
purportedly under s.158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On appeal by
assessee, Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to F
proceed against the assessee for making the block assessment in terms of
Chapter XIV-B of the Act, as no search was conducted in terms of s.132 of
the Act. The block assessment period is 1987-88 to 1995-96. High Court
however held that the Assessing Officer had the requisite jurisdiction in terms
ofs.158BD of the Act r/w. s.2(31) thereof. Hence the present appeals.
G
.., Allowing the appeals, the Court
j

HELD: 1.1. Condition precedent for invoking a block assessment is that
a search has been conducted under Section 132, or documents or assets have
61 H
i;:::::-
62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 3 S.C.R.

A been requisitioned under Section 132A. The said provision would apply in
the case of any person in respect of whom search has been carried out under
. .....
_
Section 132A or documents or assets have been requisitioned under Section
132A. Section 15880, however, provides for taking recourse to a bl.ock
assessment in terms of Section 158BC in respect of any other person, the
conditions precedents wherefor are : (i) Satisfaction must be recorded by the
B Assessing Officer that any undisclosed income belongs to any person, other
than the person with respect to whom search was made under Section 132 of
the Act; (ii) The books of account or other documents or assets seized or ,,
requisitioned had been handed over to the Assessing Officer having ~

jurisdiction over such other person; and (iii) The Assessing Officer has
c proceeded under Section 158BC against such other person. (Para 11)
(69-B-DJ

1.2. The conditions precedent for invoking the provisions of Section
l58BD, thus, are required to be satisfied before the provisions of the said illl
chapter are applied in relation to any person other than the person whose
D premises had been searched or whose documents and other assets had been
requisitioned under Section 132A of the Act. A taxing statute, as is well-
known, must be construed strictly. (Paras 12 and 13) (69-E-F)
"
Sneh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (2006) 7 SCC
714; Srinivasa Rao v. Govt. of A.P. & Anr., (2006) 13 SCALE 27 and Mis.
E /spat Industries Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, JT (2006) 12 SC •
379 : (2006) 9 SCALE 652, referred to.

2.1. In the present case the notice dated 06.02.1996 issued to the
assessee-company does not record any satisfaction on the part of the
Assessing Officer. Documents and other assets recovered during search had
F
not been handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction in the
matter. No proceeding under Section 158BC had been initiated. There is, thus, · 11.
a patent non-application of mind. A prescribed form had been utilized. Even
the status of the assessee had not been specified. It had only been mentioned
that the search was conducted in the month of November 1995. No other
G information had been furnished. The provisions contained in Chapter XIVB
are drastic in nature. It has draconian consequences. Such a proceeding can
be initiated, it would bear repetition to state, only if a raid is conducted. When (
the provisions are attracted, legal presumptions are raised against the
assess1~e. The burden shifts on the assessee. Audited accounts for a period of
ten years may have to be reopened. (Paras 16 and 17) (70-D-F)
H
MANISH MAHESHWARI v. ASSTT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX [S.B. SINHA, J.] 63
2.2. As the Assessing Officer has not recorded its satisfaction, which A
-·., is mandatory; nor has it transferred the case to the Assessing Officer having
jurisdiction over the matter, the judgment of the High Court cannot be
'. sustained. [Para 22) (72-CJ

Khandubhai' Vasanji Desai and Ors. v. Deputy Commissioner ofIncome-
Tax and Anr., (1999) 236 ITR 73; Rushil Industries Ltd. v. Harsh Prakash, B
(2001) 251 ITR 608; Priya Blue Industries P. ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of
Income-Tax (2001) 251 ITR 615; Premjibhai and Sons v. Joint Commissioner
ofIncome-Tax, (2001) 251 ITR 625; Commissioner ofIncome-Tax v. Deep Arts,
(2005) 274 ITR 571; Commissioner ofIncome-Tax v. Don Bosco Card Centre,
(2006) 205 CTR 500 and Commissioner ofIncome-Tax v. Smt. Maya Chotrani, c
(2007) 288 ITR 175, approved.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Pushpa Rani (2005) 193 CIR (Del) 256,
held inapplicable.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 924 of2007. D
From the Judgment and Final Order dated 28.9.2004 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench) in ITA No. 6011999.
~

-~
WITH
E
C.A. No. 925 of2007.

A.K. Chitale, Niraj Sharma and Vikrant Singh Bais for the Appellant.

Chidananda D.L., Gaurav Dhingra and B.V. Balaram for the Respondents.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J. I. Leave granted.

2. Interpretation of the provision Section I 58BC of the Income Tax Act,
1961 (for short, 'the Act') is in question in these appeals which arise out of G
judgments and orders dated 28.09.2004 and 14.03.2005 passed by a Division
Bench of the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in LT.A. Nos.
60 and 105of1999.
l
3. Before embarking on legal issues, we may notice the fact of matter
from Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.9751 of2005.
H
64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 3 S.C.R.

A 4. The assessee 'Mis Indore Construction Company (Pvt.) Ltd.' (for
short, 'the· Company') is a company registered and incorporated under the \ ~ -
Companies Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act'). One Shri Rameshwar Maheshwari
is of one of its Directors. Shri Maheshwari, apart from being a Director of the
said Company, is also a tax consultant. A search was conducted, as
B contemplated under Section 132 of the Act, in the premises of the said
Maheshwari and his wife Smt. Lalita Devi on 2 I.I 1.1995. Several incriminating
documents relating to the business of the Company were seized. A proceeding
was initiated against the Company purported to be under Section l 58BC of
the Act. The order of assessment was passed on 29 .11.1996. The Tribunal in
an appeal preferred by the assessee thereagainst opined that the Assessing
C Officer had no jurisdiction to proceed against the assessee for making the
block assessments in terms of Chapter XIV-B of the Act, as no search was
conducted in terms of Section 132 of the Act, stating :

"28. Perusal of the assessment order would go to reveal that the A.O.
did not do so. Instead of determining the undisclosed income on the
D basis of the materials seized from the residence of the Co's Director,
he embarked upon a roving enquiry in respect of completed
assessments by referring three apartments to the Valuation Cell 'to
ascertain the correct investment made by the assessee' and on receipt
of the reports of the Valuation Cell proceeded to compute the income
E u/s 69 as unexplained investment, adding thereto further undisclosed
profit earned on sale of flats. To our mind, what the A.O. did is
beyond the scope of sec. l 58BD. No addition can be made in any of
the as~essment year of the block period regarding which no material
or information is available with the A.O. In a case, where any material
F or information is found during search, the A.O. has to co-relate such
material/information with regard to the regular assessment which have
already been completed. At the cost of repetition we may state that
Chapter XIV-B does not authorize the A.O. to review the assessment
competed unless and until there is any direct or indirect or clinching
evidence to indicate that the assessee has withheld or had not
G disclosed any income. No additions can be made merely on the basis
of presumption or hypothesis. This is what the A.O. had actual done."

5. An appeal preferred by the respondent herein before the High Court,
as noticed hereinbefore, thereagainst under Section 260-A of the Act, has
H been allowed, holding that the Assessing Officer had the requisite jurisdiction
in terms of Section l 58BD of the Act read with Section 2(31) thereof. The
MANISH MAHESHWARI "· ASSTT. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX [S.B. SINHA, J.] 65

.. Block Assessment Period is 1987-88 to 1995-96. The search was conducted A
on 21.11.1995, wherefor a warrant of authorization was issued on 15.10.1995
in the following terms :

"lfa summons under sub-section (1) of section 131 of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 or under sub section (I) of section 142 of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 is issued to Shri Rameshwar R. Maheshwari, Smt. Lalita B
Devi.

To produce, or cause to be produced, books of accounts or other
documents of the institution or relevant proceedings under the Income
Tax Act, 1961 he would not produce or cause to be produced, such C
books of accounts or other documents as required.

Shri Rameshwar H. Maheswari, Smt. Lalita Devi.

any person is in possession of any money, bullion, jewellery or other
valuable article or things and such money, bullion, jewellery or other
valuable article or things represents either wholly or partly income or D
. property which has not been, or would not be disclosed for the
purposes of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 or the Income Tax Act,
1961."
1
6. We may also notice that purported compliance of Section 15880 was E
sought to be made by issuing a notice to the Company on 06.02. 1996, which
is as under :

"To
Indore Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd.
380, Jawahar Marg, F
Indore

In pursuance of provisions of the section I 5SBC of the Income
Tax Act, 1961, you are requested to prepare a true and correct return
of your total income including the undisclosed income in respect of G
which you as individual/HUF/Firm/Company/AOP/Body of individual/
local authority are assessable for the block period mentioned in Section
158B(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The return should be in the prescribed form 2B and be delivered H
66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 3 S.C.R.

A .in this office within 16 days of service of this notice duly verified and
signed in accordance with the provisions of Section 140 of the Income ....
Tax Act, 1961.

(Search was conducted in the month of Nov. 95)."

B 7. A Company registered and incorporated under the Act is indisputably
a 'person' within the meaning of Section 2(31) of the Act. Block period is
defined in Section 158B(a) contained in Chapter XIV-B, to mean:

"(a) "block period" means the previous years relevant to ten
assessment years preceding the previous year in which the ·-
c search was conducted under section 132 or any requisition was
made under section l 32A, and includes, in the previous year in
which such search was conducted or requisition made the
period up to the date of the commencement of such search or,
as the case may be, the date of such requisition;"

D 8. Chapter XIV-B provides for 'Special Procedure for Assessment of
Search Cases'. How a search would be conducted is provided for in Section
132 of the Act; Clause (a) of sub-section (I) whereof reads as under :

"132. Search and seizure

E (1) Where the Director General or Director or the Chief
Commissioner or Commissioner or any such Joint Director or Joint
Commissioner as may be empowered in this behalf by the Board, in
consequence of information in his possession, has reason to believe
~- .

F (a) any person to whom a summons under sub-section (I) of section
37 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (I I of 1922), or under sub-
section (I) of section 131 of this Act, or a notice under sub-section
(4) of section 22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or under sub-
section (I) of Section 142 of this Act was issued to produce, or cause
to be produce , any books of account or other documents has omitted
G or failed to produce, or cause to be produced, such books of account
or other documents as required by such summons or notice, or";

the officer specified therein so authorized would be entitled to exercise its
powers stated therein.

H
MANISH MAHESHWARI v. ASSTT. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX [S.B. SINHA, J] 67

9. Sub-section IA of Section 132 of the Act empowers the Chief A
.., Commissioner or Commissioner to authorize an officer to take action under
any of the clauses referred thereto. A presumption is raised under sub-section
4A of Section 132 of the Act in the following terms :

"(4A). Where any books of account, other documents, money, bullion,
jewellery or other valuable article or thing are or is found in the B
possession or control of any person in the course of a search, it may
be presumed -
.. (i) that such books of account, other documents, money, bullion,
jewellery or other valuable article or thing belong or belongs to such
person; c
(ii) that the contents of such books of account and other documents
are true; and

(iii) that the signature and every other part of such books of
account and other documents which purport to be in the handwriting D
of any particular person or which may reasonably be assumed to have
been signed by, or to be in the handwriting of, any particular person,
.. are in that person's handwriting, and in the case of a document
stamped, executed or attested, that it was duly stamped and executed
or attested by the person by whom it purports to have been so
executed or attested." E

10. Search and seizure is to be made in terms of Rule 112 of the Income
Tax Rules, 1962. For the purpose of invoking the said provision, special
procedure for assessment is laid down in Chapter XIV-B, the conditions
precedent wherefor ·as laid down must be satisfied. Sections 158BC and
15880 read as under :
F
.c.,
"I 58BC. Procedure for block assessment :

Where any search has been conducted under section 13 2 or
books of account, other documents or assets are requisitioned under
section I 32A, in the case of any person, then :- G
(a) the Assessing Officer shall -
i
(i) in respect of search initiated or books of accounts or other
documents or any assets requisitioned after the 30th day of June,
H
68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 3 S.C.R.

A 1995 but before the 1st day of January, 1997, serve a notice to
such person requiring him to furnish within such time not being
less than fifteen days;

(ii) in respect of search initiated or books of accounts or other
documents or any assets requisitioned on or after the I st day of
B January, 1997 serve a notice to such person requiring him to
furnish within such time not being less than fifteen days but not
more than forty-five days;

as may be specified in the notice a retiirn .in the prescribed fonn
and verified in the same manner as a return under clause ( l) of
c sub-section (I) of section 142, setting forth his total income
including the undisclosed income for the block period :

Provided that no notice under section 148 is required to be
issued for the purpose of proceeding under this Chapter :

Provided further that a person who has furnished a return under
D this clause shall not be entitled to file a revised return;

(b) the Assessing Officer shall proceed to determine the
undisclosed income of the block period in the manner laid down
in section 15888 and the provisions of section 142, sub-sections
(2) and (3) of section 143 and section 144 shall, so far as may be,
E apply;

(c) the Assessing Officer, on detennination of the undisclosed
income of the block period in accordance with this Chapter, shall
pass an order of assessment and detennine the tax payable by
him on the basis of such assessment;
F (d) the assets seized under section 132 or requisitioned under
section 132A shall be retained to the extent necessary and the _..._

provisions of section 1328 shall apply subject to such
modifications as may be necessary and the references to "regular
assessment" or "reassessment" in section 1328 shall be construed
G as references to "block assessment".

15880. Undisclosed income of any other person -

Where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any undisclosed
income belongs to any person, other than the person with respect to
whom search was made under section 132 or whose books of account
H
MANISH MAHESHWARI r. ASSTT. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX [S.B. SINHA, J.] 69
or other documents or any assets were requisitioned under section A
132A, then, the books of account, other documents or assets seized
or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having
jurisdiction over such other person and that Assessing Officer shall
proceed against such other person and the provisions of this Chapter
shall apply accordingly."
B
11. Condition precedent for invoking a block· assessment is that a
search has been conducted under Section 132, or documents or assets have
been requisitioned under Section 132A. The said provision would apply in the
case of any person in respect of whom search has been carried out under
Section I 32A or documents or assets have been requisitioned under Section C
132A. Section 15880, however, provides for taking recourse to a block
assessment in terms of Section l 58BC in respect of any other person, the
conditions precedents wherefor are : (i) Satisfaction must be recorded by the
Assessing Officer that any undisclosed income belongs to any person, other
than the person with respect to whom search was made under Section 132 of
the Act; (ii) The books of account or other documents or assets seized or D
requisitioned t.ad been handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction
over such other person; and (iii) The Assessing Officer has proceeded under
Section l 58BC against such other person.

12. The conditions precedent for invoking the provisions of Section
15880, thus, are required to be satisfied before the provisions of the said E
chapter are applied in relation to any person other than the person whose
premises had been searched or whose documents and other assets had been
requisitioned under Section 132A of the Act.

13. A taxing statute, as is well-known, must be construed strictly. In
Sneh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi [2006] 7 SCC 714,
F
it was held :

"While dealing with a taxing provision, the principle of 'Strict
Interpretation' should be applied. The Court shall not interpret the
statutory provision in such a manner which would create an additional G
fiscal burden on a person. It would never be done by invoking the
provisions of another Act, which are not attracted. It is also trite that
while two interpretations are possible, the Court ordinarily would
interpret the provisions in favour of a tax-payer and against the
Revenue."
H
70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 3 S.C.R.

A 14. Yet again in J Srinivasa Rao v. Govt. of A.P. & Anr., (2006) 13
SCALE 27, it was held :

"Jn a case of doubt or dispute, it is well-settled, construction has
to be made in favour of the taxpayer and against the Revenue."

B 15. In Mis. !spat Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai,
JT (2006) 12 SC 379: (2006) 9 SCALE 652, this Court opined:

"In our opinion if there are two possible interpretations of a rule, one
which subserves the object of a provision in the parent statute and
the other which does not, we have to adopt the former, because
c adopting the latter will make the rule ultra vires the Act."

16. Law in this regard is clear and explicit. The only question which
arises for our consideration is as to whether the notice dated 06.02.1996
satisfies the requirements of Section 15880 of the Act. The said notice does
D not record any satisfaction on the part of the Assessing Officer. Documents
and other assets recovered during search had not been handed over to the
Assessing Officer having jurisdiction in the matter.

17. No proceeding under Section 158BC had been initiated. There is, "
thus, a patent non-application of mind. A prescribed form had been utilized.
E Even the status of the assessee had not been specified. It had only been
!llentioned that the search was conducted in the month of November 1995. No
other information had been fumislied. The provisions contained in Chapter
XIVB are drastic in nature. It has draconian consequences. Such a proceeding
can be initiated, it would bear repetition to state, only if a raid is conducted.
When the provisions are attracted, legal presumptions are raised against the
F assessee. The burden shifts on the assessee. Audited accounts for a period
of ten years may have to be reopened.

18. A large number of decisions of various High Courts have been cited
at the bar. We would, at the outset, refer to a decision of the Gujarat High
G Court in Khandubhai Vasanji Desai and Ors. v. Deputy Commissioner of
Income-Tax and Anr., (1999) 236 !TR 73. Therein, it was clearly held:

"This provision indicates that where the Assessing Officer who •
J
is seized of the matter and has jurisdiction over the person other than
the person with respect to whom search was made under s. 132 or
H
MANISH MAHESHWARI 1·. ASSTT. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX [S.B. SINHA, J.] 71

whose books of account or other documents or any assets were A
·- . requisitioned under s. l 32A, he shall proceed against such other
person as per the provisions of Chapter XIV-B which would mean that
on such satisfaction being reached that any undisclosed income
belongs to such other person, he must proceed to serve a notice to
such other person as per the provisions of s. l 58BC of the Act. If the
Assessing Officer who is seized of the matter against the raided
B
person reaches such satisfaction that any undisclosed income belongs
to such other person over whom he has no jurisdiction, then, in that
~ ... event, he has to transmit the material to the Assessing Officer having
jurisdiction over such other person and in such cases the Assessing
Officer who has jurisdiction will proceed against such other person by c
issuing the requisite notice contemplated by s. l 58BC of the Act."

19. Similar view has been taken by the Gujarat High Court in Rushil
lndustries Ltd. v. Harsh Prakash, (2001) 251 !TR 608, Priya Blue Industries
P. Ltd v. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, (2001) 251 ITR 615, Premjibhai
and Sons v. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, (200 I) 251 !TR 625, and by
D
Kerala High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Deep Arts, (2005) 274
!TR 571, Commissioner ofJncome-Tax v. Don Bosco Card Centre, (2006) 205
~ CTR 500 and by Madhya Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax
~ v. Smt. Maya Chotrani, (2007) 288 !TR 175.
E
20. We may, however, notice that Mr. A.K. Chitale, relied upon a decision
of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Jncome Tax v. Pushpa Rani,
(2005) 193 CIR (Del) 256 wherein a Division Bench of the said Court held :

" ... The Tribunal on the material placed before it, arrived at a conclusion
that there were no search warrants in the name of the assessees and F
hence it accepted the contention of the learne.d counsel that the
proceedings initiated under s. 15 SBC in the cases of the assesses were
ab initio void and without jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the
Department was unable to furnish any clarification and stated before
the Tribunal that the facts stated by the assesses regarding non- G
issuance of the search warrant in the case of the two ladies were
correct. It is in view of this that the Tribunal has held that unless a
search warrant is issued, the Assessing Officer cannot invoke the
't
provisions ofs. 158BC for initiation of block assessment proceedings
under Chapter XIV-B. However, so far as the bank locker is concerned,
H
72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 3 S.C.R.

A it is submitted that the officer was armed with the search warrant and,
therefore, whatever the property was found, namely, jewellery, money
and bonds, etc., the assesses ought to have assessed and the Tribunal
ought not to have interfered with the order made by the CIT (A)."

2 I. We are of the opinion that the said decision has no application in
B the instant case.
22. As the Assessing Officer has not recorded its satisfaction, which
is mandatory; nor has it transferred the case to the Assessing Officer having
jurisdiction over the matter, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgments
C of the High Court cannot be sustained, which are set aside accordingly. The
appeals are allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case,
there shall be no order as to costs.

B.B.B. Appeals allowed.