Per D.C. Agrawal, Accountant Member: This is appeal filed by assessee against order of Assessing Officer passed under section 158BD on 28-3-2006. 2. facts of case are that search and seizure operation under section 132(1) was carried out in case of Dr. D.C. Srivastava and Dr. Saroj Srivastava at B-55, Mandir Marg, Mahanagar, Lucknow on 25-9-1996. During course of search, several valuables and cash were found and seized as detailed by Assessing Officer in assessment order. Assessing Officer initiated proceeding under section 158BC against assessee and completed it block assessment under that section vide his order dated 25-9- 1997 within limitation of one year. Assessing Officer computed undisclosed income of assessee in that order at Rs. 52,39,720. assessee filed appeal before ITAT as provided in relevant provisions applicable for searches carried out prior to 1-1-1997. Tribunal cancelled assessment on ground that no search has taken place against assessee. search was taken place against Dr. D.C. Srivastava and Dr. Saroj Srivastava. No warrant under section 132(1) was issued against this assessee. Thereafter, Assessing Officer being DCIT, Range-1, Lucknow recorded satisfaction note under section 158BD on 30-3-2005 and forwarded same to Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over assessee. Accordingly, notice under section 158BC was issued to assessee on 30-3-2005 itself. In response thereto proceedings were initiated and finally assessment order under section 158BC read with section 158BD of Income-tax Act was passed on 28-3-2006 on total income of Rs. 52,39,720. 3. Assessee now challenged this before us mainly on legal ground that Assessing Officer could not have recorded satisfaction and initiated block assessment proceedings after lapse of more than 8 years. preliminary grounds raised by assessee are as under:- (1)Because notice captioned as 'under section 158BD read with section 158BC of Income-tax-Act, 1961' dated 30-3-2005 is wholly illegal as there is no enabling provision (to issue such notice in Chapter XIV-B of Act) and block assessment order dated 28-3- 2006 captioned as 'section 158BC read with section 158BD of Income-tax Act, 1961' passed there under is wholly illegal as being without jurisdiction. (2)Because looking to overall scheme of 'block assessment' as envisaged in Chapter XIV-B of 'Act,' proceedings to make block assessment under section 158BD, have to be necessarily initiated by issue of notice under section 158BC only, which in present case, pre-supposes that same should have been issued before 30-9-1997 which was expiry date of outer time-limit, and failure to adhere to such time-limit has rendered block assessment order dated 28-3-2006, as null and void. (3)Because in any case and in view of finding of fact as had been recorded by Hon'ble ITAT in appellant's own case in ITA No. 1357/All./97, to effect that at initial stage requirement of section 158BD had not been complied with, learned Assessing Officer could not have reinitiated said proceedings by recording 'satisfaction' (so called) vide order sheet entry dated 30-3-2005, i.e., after expiry of period of nearly 8 and years as calculated from date of search and consequently block assessment order dated 28-3-2006 is bad in law. (4)Because, notwithstanding above-referred grounds, block assessment order dated 28-3-2006 as has been impugned in present appeal is bad in law as notice dated 30-3-2005 captioned as 'under section 158BD read with section 158BC' is wholly vague in its contents. (5)Because block assessment order dated 28-3-2006 is bad in law as same has been passed without confronting appellant with material n d information as has been utilized for purposes of computation of 'undisclosed income'. (6)Because on facts and circumstances of case, 'approval' said t o have been granted by ld. CIT(A)-I, Lucknow under section 158BC, does not meet requirement of law, as same had been granted mechanically and without application of mind and impugned block assessment order is void ab initio, inter alia, on this ground as well. 4. learned Authorised Representative for assessee submitted that firstly, notice under section 158BD should have been issued within reasonable time of completion of block assessment proceedings in case of persons searched. persons searched were Dr. D.C. Srivastava and Dr. Saroj Srivastava. present assessee was not subjected to search. In fact, according to learned Authorised Representative no assessment under section 158BC has been made in case of Dr. D.C. Srivastava and Dr. Saroj Srivastava which means that Assessing Officer of those two assessees, who were subjected to search, was satisfied that undisclosed as result of search belong to present assessee. As consequence thereof, proceeding under section 158BD should have been initiated just thereafter. In present case proceeding under section 158BD have been initiated after lapse of more than 8 years from date of search. Therefore, due to latches, assessment should be cancelled. He relied on decision of ITAT, 'C' Bench, Delhi in case of B. L. Leather (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT in IT(SS) A. No. 13/Delhi/1999, dated 28-12-2004 for proposition that proceeding under section 158BD should have been initiated within reasonable time by Assessing Officer and for this purpose Assessing Officer who has completed proceeding under section 158BC of persons searched should be satisfied during course of block assessment proceedings of persons searched. He then referred to decision of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in case of P. Mahendra Reddy v. Asstt. CIT [2005] 2 SOT 696 for proposition that if there is delay in initiating under section 158BD proceeding then such assessment is not valid. In that case there was delay of more than 4 years after search proceedings. learned Authorised Representative for assessee further submitted that it is same Assessing Officer whose satisfaction was necessary before proceeding under section 158BD is initiated by officer having jurisdiction over person not searched and in respect of whom Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over person search was satisfied that undisclosed income belongs to him (person not searched). learned Authorised Representative relied on decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case of Sriram Jaiswal v. Union of India [1989] 176 ITR 261 for proposition that where approval was given after period of limitation then same will not be valid. 5. Against this ld. Departmental Representative submitted that question of latches will depend from case to case and there cannot be uniform rule in all case. Court has to consider explanation of delay and if it is reasonable or there is satisfactory explanation, proceedings should not be cancelled. In present case, Assessing Officer had completed proceedings under section 158BC within limitation but on account of block assessment order having been cancelled by Tribunal, fresh assessment proceedings have to be initiated by recording proper satisfaction. There is no delay in initiating proceedings. Tribunal has passed order on 23-9-2004 and Assessing Officer has initiated proceedings on 30-3-2005 which is within 6 months. It cannot be said to be inordinate delay. He further submitted that proceedings under section 158BD are akin to proceeding under section 147 and reassessment proceedings can be undertaken with time available. He relied on decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of Khandubhai Vasanji Desai v. Dy. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 73 for proposition that limitation should be considered on reasonable basis. He then referred to decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Janki Exports International v. Union of India [2005] 278 ITR 296 for proposition that proceeding under section 158BD are similar to proceeding under section 147. He then relied on decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case of Sukhlal Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. ITO [1993] 199 ITR 129 for proposition that second proceedings can be initiated if first proceedings are found invalid. He then referred to decision of Allahabad High Court in case of Dharam Pal Singh Rao v. ITO [2004] 271 ITR 223 for proposition that if Assessing Officer issues subsequent notice after properly obtaining sanction of ACIT as required under law then such notice will not be invalid if it is within period of limitation. Thereafter ld. Departmental Representative referred to decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Shri Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 155 ITR 560 for proposition that Courts have discretion to condone delay. In brief, ld. Departmental Representative summarized argument submitting that doctrine of latches is judicial principle and should be exercised with discretion. reasonability of explanation should be seen. And if explanation is satisfactory, delay should be condoned as Department has given proper explanation as to why notice under section 158BD was issued on 30-3-2005. In view of above, proceeding under section 158BC/158BD should be held valid. 6. We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. learned Authorised Representative has raised issue that for initiating proceeding under section 158BD, it is same Assessing Officer who should have been satisfied, who has completed block assessment proceedings in case of person searched. According to him, it is his satisfaction which is relevant. In present case, satisfaction has been written after lapse of almost 8 years by different officer. 7. We are of considered view that this submission is based on narrow interpretation of words used in section 158BD. requirements of section 158BD are that- (i) Assessing Officer of person searched should be satisfied; (ii)Undisclosed income belongs to person other than person searched. In this regard, it would be relevant to quote provisions of section 158BD as under:- ' Where Assessing Officer is satisfied that any undisclosed income belongs to any person, other than person with respect to whom search was made under section 132 or whose books of account or other documents or any assets were requisitioned under section 132A, then books of account, other documents or assets seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person and that Assessing Officer shall proceed [under section 158BC] against such other person and provisions of this Chapter shall apply accordingly.' Legislature has used article 'the' before words 'Assessing Officer'. It shows that it has to be Assessing Officer of person searched. narrow view would be that it should be same person and not officer having same jurisdiction. In our considered view, interpretation of words 'the Assessing Officer is satisfied' in section 158BD, that it should be satisfaction of same person who completed 158BC proceeding against person searched is narrow interpretation. Assessing Officer can always be changed through transfer by competent authority and jurisdiction can also be changed. It is also possible that satisfaction as required under section 158BD is recorded after some gap of time because of some administrative problem or otherwise or because of injunction of Court. During meantime, officer may be changed by way of transfer. Therefore, to infer that it should be same person to record satisfaction for enabling other officer having jurisdiction over person in whose case undisclosed income is to be assessed and who is not subjected to search is very narrow view of provision and is not acceptable. It is also legally not tenable as provision does not indicate that satisfaction should be of same person occupying office and who has initiated proceedings under section 158BC against person searched. Therefore, in our view it has to be Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over person searched who has to record satisfaction that undisclosed income pertained to third person who is not subjected to search and books of account and other documents have to be handed over to Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over that other person. Accordingly, this argument of learned Authorised Representative is rejected. 8. next argument of learned Authorised Representative is that proceeding under section 158BD should have been initiated within reasonable time. In fact, no time-limit is provided for initiating 158BD proceeding. Accordingly, we agree with learned Authorised Representative that such proceeding is to be initiated within reasonable time-limit of completion of section 158BC proceeding of persons searched. ITAT, Hyderabad in P. Mahendra Reddy's case (supra) considered this issue and referring to decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Parshuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1977] 106 ITR 1, Union of India v. J.N. Sinha AIR 1971 SC 40, State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha AIR 1969 SC 1297 and Khandubhai Vasanji Desai's case (supra) held that if notice is unduly delayed then proceedings will not be valid. We also uphold contention of learned Authorised Representative that proceedings under section 158BD are akin to proceedings under section 147. This is supported by decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Janki Exports International (supra). If no limitation is provided in statute for initiating proceeding under section 158BD then one has to take clue from similar proceedings in Income-tax Act. provisions of section 147 are held to be similar to provisions of section 158BD as both deal with undisclosed income. Section 147 deals with escaped income whereas 158BD deals with undisclosed income arising as result of search. Therefore, limitation for initiating proceedings should not be beyond what is provided for action under section 147. We agree with learned Authorised Representative that when extent of block period was modified from 10 years to 6 years limitation for reopening of assessment under section 147 was also reduced from 10 years to 6 years. Legislature thus intended to assess undisclosed income within period of 6 years. Hon'ble Tribunal in P. Mahendra Reddy's case (supra) has held that initiating of 158BD proceeding after 4 years is inordinate delay. comparable provisions of section 147 also make us believe that initiation of proceeding under section 158BD beyond period of 6 years cannot be held as valid. Even then that period of delay has to be explained by Assessing Officer with cogent reasons. It is for Court to treat explanation satisfactory depending upon facts and circumstances of that case. In present case, notice under section 158BD was issued after 8 years of search. explanation of Assessing Officer that assessment in case of assessee was already done under section 158BC and on assessment having been cancelled by Tribunal, fresh satisfaction and proceeding under section 158BD were initiated, can be held to be satisfactory, but if delay is beyond reasonable period which is considered to be 6 years, being at par with provisions of section 147/148/149, then in spite of explanation being satisfactory, assessment cannot be held to be valid. We, therefore, cancel assessment under section 158BD on account of inordinate delay and delay which is beyond period of 6 years as provided under parallel provisions of section 147/148/149. 9. As result, we cancel assessment. 10. As result, appeal of assessee is allowed. *** SAROJ NURSING HOME v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX