PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 
AND A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ORDER

A.T. Varkey, Judicial Member - These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)-XXXI dated 30.03.2013 for Assessment Year 2006-07 to 2009-10.

2. Brief facts of the case is that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(herein after 'the Act') was carried out in Rajdarbar Group of cases on 31.07.2008. During search operation certain documents were seized which belonged to the assessee company. The case of the assessee company was centralized with Central Circle-5, New Delhi under section 127 of the Act by orders dated 25.03.2010.

3. Notice u/s 153C of Act dated 23.07.2010 was issued to the assessee company, requiring it to file the return for the Assessment Year 2006-07 which remained uncomplied with. Fresh notice u/s 153C of Act dated 09.08.2010 was issued to the assessee company, at the new address which was supplied by A.R. of the assessee company, requiring it to file the return for the Assessment Year 2005-06. Return of income for the Assessment Year 2006-07 was filed by the assessee on 23.08.2010 declaring nil. The return filed by the assessee company was the same as that of filed under section 139 of the Act on 15.12.2006.

4. Notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) along with questionnaire were issued to the assessee by the AO on 06/09/2010, fixing the case for hearing and to furnish necessary details by 20/09/2010. But the assessee failed to furnish any details. In order to complete the assessment proceedings, final notice u/s 142(1) dated 03/11/2010 was issued by the AO to the assessee giving one more opportunity to attend the hearing and furnish necessary details. This notice was also remained uncomplied with. In the event of continuous non-cooperation and keeping in view the limitation in the matter, notice u/s 144 dated 19.11.2010 was issued by the AO, giving the assessee last opportunity to furnish the required details for the completion of assessment. The AR of the assessee furnished details in the AO's office on from time to time and declared Nil income. The details filed by the assessee company had been examined by the AO. The assessee company was engaged in the business of money lending, financing activities etc apart from this assessee has received rental income. The AO was of the opinion that since the assessee is not in the business of constructing and letting the property on rent. Furthermore, the assessee itself has shown the rental income as Income from House Property. In such circumstances this expenditure cannot be claimed as business expenditure u/s 37 of the Act because it is directly related to the rental income and not to the business of the assessee. The expenditure incurred by an assessee for securing the tenant is not an allowable expenditure specified in Section 24 to 27 of the Act. This amount of Rs. 64,12,908/- can neither be allowed as business expenditure nor as deduction while computing the income from House property. Therefore made an addition of Rs.64,12,908/- to the total income of the assessee. And since the assessee has debited an amount of Rs. 2,19,2501- towards lease deed expenses. This expenditure is also not allowable as business expenditure because the assessee is not in the business of real estate development. In such circumstances this expenditure becomes a capital expenditure and cannot be allowed. Therefore, made an addition of Rs.2,19,250/-.

5. The AO observed that Rs.35,97,905/- interest paid to banks were not utilized for the purpose of the business of the assessee but were being utilized for advancing interest free loan to its sister concerns therefore held to be not allowable. Further the AO observed Rs.1,62,645/- were held as deferred revenue expenditure debited to P&L A/c and were not for the purpose of the business of the assessee and there is no concept of deferred revenue expenditure as such disallowed this expenses.
6. The total income of the assessee is computed as under:—

7. For Assessment Year 2007-08 while completing the assessment, the A.O. has made addition of (a) Rs.80,00,000/- on account of the interest receivable from one of the party which was not received in this year but received in the next succeeding year. (b) The AO has made addition on account of interest paid on other loans (i) amounting to Rs.1,37,38,743/- holding that the assessee in the business of the money lending but it not charging any interest and advances given to its sister concerns whereas use interest on loan received by it from banks and other concerns was paid. Therefore, such interest was not allowable to the assessee. (ii) the assessee has paid an interest of Rs.13,32,932/-to M/s Kapoor Enterprises whereas from the documents filed by the assessee suggested that the assessee has diverted money to its group concerns, interest paid to M/s. Kapoor Enterprises cannot be allowed as deduction, therefore addition of Rs.13,32,932/- was made. The total disallowance of interest i.e. Rs.1,37,38,743/- plus Rs.13,32,932/- comes to Rs.1,50,71,675/- whereas the Ld. A.O. has disallowed interest of Rs.1,51,30,528/- therefore excess disallowance of Rs.58,853/- was made in addition to what has been disallowed by him earlier. The AO has further disallowed the claim of interest of the assessee paid to various banks holding that the interest received of Rs.80,00,000/- against the total interest paid of Rs.1,61,27,877/- will be allowed as an expense and a sum of Rs.81,27,877/-shall be disallowed and the disallowance was made. The AO further disallowed the amount of Rs.1,62,645/- debited to the P&L A/c holding that the same is debited under the head of deferred revenue expenditure and the IT Act does not recognize the concept of the deferred revenue expenditure, therefore added back to this amount.

8. Pursuant to the notice the assessee has filed its return of income for A.Y. 2008-09 on 23.08.2010/29.09.2008 declaring income of Rs.8,63,100/-. While completing the assessment, the A.O. has disallowed loss of Rs.36,00,000/-towards not allotment of property at Palam Vihar, Gurgoan by observing that the expenditure is in the nature of capital expenditure.

9. The AO has also made addition on account of interest paid to (i) M/s Narsi Creation amounting to Rs.69,47,772/- holding that the same has been explained in the assessment order for the assessment year 2006-07 & 2007-08 without giving any specific reasons for the disallowance for this year. (ii) M/s Kapoor Enterprises of Rs.1,13,03,771/- holding that the income bearing loan received from M/s Kapoor enterprises were diverted by the assessee to its group concerns from which no interest have been charged therefore, the same amounting to Rs.1,13,03,771/- was disallowed. However, the AO disallowed Rs.19,96,95,907/-.

10. The AO further noted that the assessee has paid an amount of Rs.1,52,80,027/- as interest to Union Bank. There has been other miscellaneous. Charges debited to the P&L A/c amounting to Rs.4,11,582/- thus the total, of these two expenses amounting to Rs.1,56,91,609/- has been added and claimed as interest paid to the bank. The A.O. has further observed that the interest received by the assessee of Rs.80,00,000/- can be allowed as a deduction and not the whole amount therefore out of the total interest paid to Union bank Rs. 76,91,069/- was disallowed. The miscellaneous expenses amounting to Rs.4,11,582/- debited to the P&L A/c were also disallowed. The AO also disallowed an amount of Rs.1,62,645/- debited to the P&L a/c as deferred revenue expenditure holding that the income tax act does not recognizes the concept of deferred revenue expenditure.

11. Pursuant to the notice the assessee has filed its return of income for A.Y. 2009-10 on 23.08.2010/30.09.2009 declaring income of Rs.1,47,88,292/-. While completing the assessment, the A.O. has made addition of Rs.57,57,700/- by way of disallowing interest paid on other loans includes interest paid to M/s Kapoor Enterprises amounting to Rs.57,57,700/- holding that the interest bearing loan received from Kapoor Enterprises have been diverted to its group concerns thereby the interest payment of this amount was disallowed.

12. The AO further observed that the assessee has paid interest to bank on term loans and the assessee has paid an amount of Rs.1,37,43,576/- as interest to Union bank of India and holding that the discussion have been made in the assessment orders passed for the assessment year 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 whereby it was held that deduction to the extent of interest income received will be allowed therefore, the interest received of Rs.80,00,000/- was allowed to be set off to be debited in P&L A/c and balance amount of Rs.57,64,194/- was added to the income and disallowed.

13. Aggrieved with these assessment, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld CIT(A) challenging the jurisdiction as well as the assessments on the ground that they are illegal as these assessments were not based on any material found or seized during the course of search conducted in the case of Rajdarbar Group of companies. According to the ld CIT(A), the AO rightly assumed jurisdiction u/s 153A, and was of the view that assessment u/s 153A are mandatory even when no incriminating material is found in the course of search and confirmed the assessment made by the AO.
14. Aggrieved by the said order of the ld CIT(A), the assessee is before us.

15. Since the grounds of appeal are identical in all the appeals, the ground preferred for AY 2006-07 are as follows:—

16. The ld AR assailed the impugned order and brought to our notice the satisfaction note recorded in the case of the assessee for Assessment Year 2006-07 to 2009-10 which reads as under:—
"M/s Natural Products Bio-tech Ltd.

(Assessment Year 2005-2006)
23.07.2010
Satisfaction note for proceedings u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A Search operation was conducted on Raj Darbar Group of Cases on 31.07.2008. During the course of Search operations at the premises of
(i) Party A-7. Global Reality Ventures Pvt. Ltd
Various papers were found and seized belonging to M/s Nageshwar Investment Ltd. The annexure are marked as under:
Party A-7
Annexure A-45, Hard Disc containing Books of Accounts of M/s Nageshwar Investment Ltd.
Thus the proceedings u/s 153C r.w. section 153A of the Income Tax Act 1961 are being initiated in the above case.

-Sd/-
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -12, New Delhi."

17. The ld counsel submitted that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in failing to appreciate that both the notice issued u/s 153C of the Act and, assessment framed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act were without satisfying the statutory preconditions in the Act and as such, were without jurisdiction and therefore, deserve to be quashed as such. Further the ld counsel contended that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that since no money or bullion or jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of accounts or documents belonging to the appellant were seized as a result of search notice issued u/s 153C of the Act was illegal, invalid and unsustainable and so bad in law being without jurisdiction. And the ld AR relied on the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd. v. Asstt CIT [2014] 52 taxmann.com 220. On the other hand the ld DR, supported the order of the ld CIT(A).

18. We have heard the rival submission and carefully gone through the records and the case laws cited before us. The main issue that was raised by the assessee company is that assumption of jurisdiction by the AO before issuing notice u/s 153C of the Act is not in accordance to law and so the subsequent assessment is void-ab-initio and should be quashed being quarum-non-judice. For buttressing the said ground, the ld counsel for the assessee brought to our notice the law laid by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd.'s (supra) after examining the provision of Section 153C, 132 (4A)(i) and 292 (i)ii of the Act, the Hon'ble High Court had held as under:—

'6. On a plain reading of Section 153C, it is evident that the Assessing Officer of the searched person must be "satisfied" that inter alia any document seized or requisitioned "belongs to" a person other than the searched person. It is only then that the Assessing Officer of the searched person can handover such document to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person (other than the searched person). Furthermore, it is only after such handing over that the Assessing Officer of such other person can issue a notice to that person and assess or re-assess his income in accordance with the provisions of Section 153A. Therefore, before a notice under Section 153C can be issued two steps have to be taken. The first step is that the Assessing Officer of the person who is searched must arrive at a clear satisfaction that a document seized from him does not belong to him but to some other person. The second step is - after such satisfaction is arrived at - that the document is handed over to the Assessing Officer of the person to whom the said document "belongs". In the present cases it as been urged on behalf of the petitioner that the first step itself has not been fulfilled. For this purpose it would be necessary to examine the provisions of presumptions as indicated above. Section 132( 4A)(i) clearly stipulates that when inter alia any document is found in the possession or control of any person in the course of a search it may be presumed that such document belongs to such person. It is similarly provided in Section 292C (1)(i). In other words, whenever a document is found from a person who is being searched the normal presumption is that the said document belongs to that person. It is for the Assessing Officer to rebut that presumption and come to a conclusion or "satisfaction" that the document in fact belongs to somebody else. There must be some cogent material available with the Assessing Officer before he/she arrives at the satisfaction that the seized document does not belong to the searched person but to somebody else. Surmise and conjecture cannot take the place of "satisfaction".

"11. It is evident from the above satisfaction note that apart from saying that the documents belonged to the petitioner and that the Assessing Officer is satisfied that it is a fit case for issuance of a notice under Section 153C, there is nothing which would indicate as to how the presumptions which are to be normally raised as indicated above, have been rebutted by the Assessing Officer. Mere use or mention of the word "satisfaction" or the words "I am satisfied" in the order or the note would not meet the requirement of the concept of satisfaction as used in Section 153C of the said Act. The satisfaction note itself must display the reasons or basis for the conclusion that the Assessing Officer of the searched person is satisfied that the seized documents belong to a person other than the searched person. We are afraid, that going through the contents of the satisfaction note, we are unable to discern any "satisfaction" of the kind required under Section 153C of the said Act.'

19. In the light of the said ratio-decidendi of the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble High Court, the ld counsel for assessee, submitted that the first step itself has not been fulfilled. So according to the ld counsel, the issuance of notice u/s 153C is illegal. Further it was pointed out by the ld counsel, the from a perusal of the purported satisfaction note recorded by the AO, it can be noted that the Ánnexure-45'which is the Hard Disc containing documents discovered at the premises of "Global Reality ventures Pvt. Ltd"', against which there is no indication whatsoever that the assessment proceedings in the case of Global Reality Ventures Pvt. Ltd were in progress or not, at that point of time and that AO during the course of that proceedings recorded this satisfaction. In order to support this contentions, the ld counsel brought to our notice the order of the co-ordinate bench in V.K. Fiscal Services (P.) Ltd. v. Dy CIT [IT Appeal No. 5460-5465 (Delhi) of 2012] in which the assessee in that case assailed the assumption of jurisdiction of the AO u/s 153C of the Act. In the said case also the same AO on the same date on which the satisfaction note u/s 153C has been recorded against the assessee in the instant case before us i.e. on 23.07.2010 made a 'ditto' copy except change in the name of the assessee, the satisfaction note which is also reproduced in Page 8 of the said order, which reads as under: (and the finding of the co-ordinate bench in respect to the same document on which reliance was placed by the AO to initiate 153C proceedings).

"23.07.2010

M/s V.K. Fiscal Services P. Ltd. (A. Y. 2008-09)
Satisfaction note for proceedings u/ s 153C of the Income Tax Act. 1961

A search operation was conducted on Raj Darbar Group of cases on 31.7.2008. During the course of search operations at the premises of:

(i) Party A-7, Global Reality Ventures P. Ltd.: various papers were found and seized belonging to M/ s VK Fiscal Services P. Ltd. The annexure are marked as under:
Party A-7: Annexure A-45 : Hard disc containing books of accounts of M/ s VK Fiscal Services P. Ltd.

Thus the proceedings u/ s 153 C read with section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are being initiated in the above case.

Sd/-
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 12, New Delhi.

11.1 A perusal of the Satisfaction Note demonstrates that in the hard disk of one of the computers some accounts of the assessee company were found. A print out of these books have been furnished to us by the Ld. CIT,D.R. A perusal of the print out show that page 1 is a "confirmation of accounts" given by the assessee company M/s V.K. Fiscal Services P. Ltd. to Global Reality Ventures Ltd., for the period is 1st April, 2008 to 31st March, 2009. As an attachment to this "confirmation of account", V.K. Fiscal Services P. Ltd. Has given a copy of ABN Amro Bank (626643) books, copy of trial balance, copy of profit and loss a/c, copy of balance sheet, copy of a party of the cash book, for the period of six months i.e. the period for which it had transactions with Global Reality Ventures, copy of ledger account of Global Reality Ventures and copy of Indian Overseas Bank (7556) ledger account. These in our view are not books of account belonging to the assessee, as sought to have been made out in the Satisfaction Note. This demonstrates that, the Satisfaction Note which says that books of accounts are contained in the hard disk, is a wrong recording of facts. The entire cash book or the bank book is not available in the hard disk. What was available in the hard disk was confirmation of accounts given by the assessee to Global Reality Ventures and statement of accounts, ledger etc. in support of the same. The relevant portion of the cash book, where the entries of Global Reality Ventures Ltd. are recorded was also there in the hard disk. Thus to hold that the hard disk contains books of accounts of M/s V.K. Fiscal Services P. Ltd. is prima facie wrong. Thus, in our view no money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles or books of accounts or documents seized belong to the assessee, warranting issual of notice u/s 153'C'.

11.2 Hence we uphold the contention of the assessee that the issual of notice u/s 153'C', under the facts and circumstances, is bad in law."

20. We also take note of the recent judgement of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in a similar case in Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd v. Asstt. CIT [2014] 50 taxman.com 299 (Delhi), after considering the decisions cited by the Revenue held in para 5 as follows:—

'5. While coming to the aforesaid conclusions the court had also examined the decisions which had been cited on behalf of the Revenue and which are, once again, being reiterated by the learned counsel for the Revenue before us. Those decisions are Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Patel v. CIT [2013] 214 Taxman 558/31 taxmann.com 50 (Guj.); CIT v. Classic Enterprises[2013] 358 ITR 465/219 Taxman 237/35 taxmann.com 244 (All.) and a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in SSP Aviation Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 346 ITR 177/207 Taxman 260/20 taxmann.com 214. This Court had indicated in its judgement in Pepsi Foods (P.) Ltd. (supra) that the case of Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Patel (supra) was distinguishable on facts. Those observations would apply to the present writ petitions also. As regards the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Classic Enterprises (supra), this Court had indicated that it could not agree with the conclusions and observations of the Allahabad High Court inasmuch as the decision of the Allahabad High Court was premised on a consideration of the provisions of Section 158BD of the said Act which are entirely different from the provisions of Section 153C of the said Act. Furthermore, with regard to the decision in SSP Aviation Ltd. (supra), this court had noted that the said decision does not militate against the view taken in Pepsi Foods (P.) Ltd. (supra).

6. The learned counsel for the Revenue has cited an additional decision before us today and that is the case of Sarvesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India [2013] 353 ITR 26/216 Taxman 109 (Mag.)/35 taxmann.com 85 (All.). This decision also, in our view, does not advance the case of the Revenue. This would be evident from the observations of the Allahabad High Court in paragraphs 19 to 21 of the said decision, which read as under:

"19. In Manish Maheshwari's case (supra) the Supreme Court observed that taxing statute must be constructed strictly. The Court, however, shall not interpret statutory provisions in such a manner, which would create an additional physical burden on a person. In case of any doubt or dispute, construction is to be made in favour of the tax payer and against the revenue.

20. In the present case we do not find anything wrong in the satisfaction note and the forwarding of the entire matter by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-Ill (2), Ahmedabad to the Assessing Officer of the petitioner at Bareilly. All the requirements of Section 153(c) were complied with by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-Ill (2), Ahmedabad. A search under Section 132A was carried out and bullion was seized. The case was selected for compulsory scrutiny for six assessment years. The assessee established that the seized silver belongs to M/s Sarvesh Jewellers, Bareilly - the petitioner. The ownership and consignment of the petitioner was also confirmed by the Assessing Officer of the petitioner at Bareilly. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Ill (2), Ahmedabad did not commit any error in law, in recording the satisfaction note requesting the petitioner's Assessing officer to proceed under Section 153(c) of the LT. Act.

21. After the assessment of the person in respect of whom search action was carried out is completed, the officer under Section 153C, where he find that seized articles belong to some other person, has to forward a satisfaction note to the Assessing Officer on such person. The satisfaction in such case is in respect of the material and disclosures of the person with which the articles or assets are found and not in respect of the person who whom they belong."(Underlining Added)

7. The above extract makes it clear that a taxing statute must be construed strictly and in the case of a doubt or dispute the construction in favour of the assessee has to be adopted. Apart from this, the material observation of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Savesh Kumar Agarwal (supra) is to be found in paragraph 20 thereof where it has been observed that the assessee established that the seized silver belongs to M/s. Sarvesh Jewellers, Bareilly - the petitioner. In other words, the person from whom the bullion was seized was able to establish that it did not belong to him but to Sarvesh Jewellers. It is in that context that the provisions of Section 153C of the Act were invoked inasmuch as the Assessing Officer would then be considered as having been satisfied that the bullion which was seized from the searched person did not belong to the searched person but to some other person (in that case M/s. Sarvesh Jewellers, Bareilly).

8. From the foregoing discussion it is evident that in order that the Assessing Officer of the searched person comes to the satisfaction that documents or materials found during the search belong to a person other than the searched person, it is necessary that he arrives at the satisfaction that the said documents or materials do not belong to the searched person. We may point out that in the course of the arguments we had asked the learned counsel for the Revenue as to whether the documents in question had been disclaimed by the Jaipuria Group. The learned counsel for the Revenue, on instructions, states that this was not the case. In other words, it follows that the Jaipuria Group did not say that the documents did not belong to them.'

21. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court further held as under:—

'13. Having set out the position in law in the decision of this Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. (supra), it must be seen as to whether the Assessing Officer of the searched person (the Jaipuria Group) could be said to have arrived at a satisfaction that the documents mentioned above belonged to the petitioners.

14. First of all we may point out, once again, that it is nobody"s case that the Jaipuria Group had disclaimed these documents as belonging to them. Unless and until it is established that the documents do not belong to the searched person, the provisions of Section 153C of the said Act do not get attracted because the very expression used in Section 153C of the said Act is that "where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belongs or belong to a person other than the person referred to in section 153A." In view of this phrase, it is necessary that before the provisions of Section 153C of the said Act can be invoked, the Assessing Officer of the searched person must be satisfied that the seized material (which includes documents) does not belong to the person referred to in Section 153A (i.e., the searched person). In the Satisfaction Note, which is the subject matter of these writ petitions, there is nothing therein to indicate that the seized documents do not belong to the Jaipuria Group. This is even apart from the fact that, as we have noted above, there is no disclaimer on the part of the Jaipuria Group insofar as these documents are concerned.

15. Secondly, we may also observe that the finding of photocopies in the possession of a searched person does not necessarily mean and imply that they "belong" to the person who holds the originals. Possession of documents and possession of photocopies of documents are two separate things. While the Jaipuria Group may be the owner of the photocopies of the documents it is quite possible that the originals may be owned by some other person. Unless it is established that the documents in question, whether they be photocopies or originals, do not belong to the searched person, the question of invoking Section 153C of the said Act does not arise.

16. Thirdly, we would also like to make it clear that the assessing officers should not confuse the expression "belongs to" with the expressions "relates to" or "refers to". A registered sale deed, for example, "belongs to" the purchaser of the property although it obviously "relates to" or "refers to" the vendor. In this example if the purchasers premises are searched and the registered sale deed is seized, it cannot be said that it "belongs to" the vendor just because his name is mentioned in the document. In the converse case if the vendor's premises are searched and a copy of the sale deed is seized, it cannot be said that the said copy "belongs to" the purchaser just because it refers to him and he (the purchaser) holds the original sale deed. In this light, it is obvious that none of the three sets of documents - copies of preference shares, unsigned leaves of cheque books and the copy of the supply and loan agreement - can be said to "belong to" the petitioner.

17. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find that the ingredients of Section 153C of the said Act have been satisfied in this case. Consequently the notices dated 02.08.2013 issued under Section 153C of the said Act are quashed. Accordingly all proceedings pursuant thereto stand quashed.

18. The writ petitions are allowed as above. There shall be no orders as to costs.'

22. In the light of the case laws cited above and on a reading of Section 153A and 153C the exercise that is required to be done by the AO has been spelt out by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of DSL Properties (P.) Ltd. v. Dy CIT [2013] 60 SOT 88(URO)/33 taxmann.com 420 (Delhi - Trib.) vide para 15 has held that if the Assessing Officer is assessing the person searched as well as other person whose assets, books of account or documents were found at the time of search, then also, first while making the assessment in the case of the person searched, he has to record the satisfaction that the money bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents belonged to the person other than the person searched. Then the copy of this satisfaction note is to be placed in the file of such other person and the relevant document should also be transferred from the file of the person searched to the file of such other person. Thereafter, in the capacity of the Assessing Officer of such other person, he has to issue the notice u/s 153A read with section 153C. The Assessing Officer of the searched person and such other person may be the same but these are two different assessees and therefore the Assessing Officer has to carry out the dual exercise first as the Assessing Officer of the person searched in which he has to record the satisfaction, during the course of assessment order proceedings of the person searched. We concur with the said view of the coordinate Bench and would like to add that this satisfaction must be an objective satisfaction based on an enquiry by the AO to establish that the documents referred to in section 153C which is found during the search u/s. 132, which are seized or requisitioned belongs to a person other than the person searched; and there should be a clear finding to that effect based on which only satisfaction as envisaged u/s. 153C can be inferred. Such a finding by the AO is required for attaining the said satisfaction and then it should be recorded in the file of the assessee which is a 'sine-qua-non' to trigger the jurisdiction for the AO to proceed against such other person. In this case this exercise of recording the satisfaction during the assessment proceedings of the person searched has not been carried out and the satisfaction does not satisfy the requirement of Section 153C and in this case as seen from the satisfaction note itself that it has been done in a mechanical manner, without application of mind. On the same date i.e. 23.7.2010, similar satisfaction note, only with the change in the name of the assessee's has been issued arbitrarily which does not in any manner satisfy the requirement of section 153C of the I.T. Act. We could not find any mention of any valuable articles or things or any books of account or documents have been referred even in the assessment order for framing assessment under section 153C of the I.T. Act. Since for all these years, the returns were originally filed and processed and since no additional material is found pertaining to the assessee which it is held to be belonging to the assessee, the AO does not assume jurisdiction for framing assessment u/s. 153C read with section 153A of the I.T. Act. The AO lacks jurisdiction to initiate proceedings u/s. 153C against the assessee and therefore, the issuance of notice itself is null and void and therefore quashed. Consequently, the impugned assessment order passed u/s. 153C is also a nullity.

23. Since we have quashed the notice u/s 153C of the Act itself, the other grounds are not adjudicated being academic.

24. In the result all the appeals preferred by the assessee are allowed.