This is appeal by assessee against order dt. 18th Oct., 2005 of CIT(A)-XXII, New Delhi relating to block period 1st April, 1986 to 13th Feb., 1997. Ground Nos. 1 to 3 read as under: "1. On facts and circumstances of case, order passed by CIT(A) is bad, both in eye of law and on facts. On facts and circumstances of case, proceedings initiated under s. 158BD of Act against appellant much after framing of block assessment of searched person is bad in eye of law and liable to be quashed. On facts and circumstances of case, there was no justification for initiating proceedings under s. 158BD of Act and as such assessment framed thereof is null and void and liable to be declared so." facts and circumstances necessary for adjudication of aforesaid grounds are as follows. assessee is individual engaged in business o f commission agent of fruits. assessee along with his sons acts as commission agent for mangoes grown in Vijayawada during mango season starting in middle of March till end of June. Search and seizure operation under s. 132(1) of IT Act, 1961 was carried out by Investigation Wing of IT Department, Vijayawada in case of Shri Shaik Johny Saheb on 13th Feb., 1997 and was concluded on 21st Feb., 1997 in his premises at Door No. 18-4-28, Kedareshwarpet, Vijayawada. block assessment under s. 158BC for block period was completed in case of Shaik Johny Saheb on 31st March, 1999. On 24th Dec., 1999 AO assessing Mr. Shaik Johney Saheb addressed letter to Asstt. CIT, Circle 19(1), New Delhi forwarding certain seized material found in course of search of Shaik Johnny Saheb and pertaining to Sh. Tahil Ram Moolchandani (the assessee herein) and his group for necessary action. On 4th Dec., 2001, AO of assessee viz., Asstt. CIT, Circle 19(1), New Delhi issued notice under s. 158BD to assessee calling upon assessee to file return of income for block period. It is in aforesaid facts and circumstances that ground Nos. 1 to 3 raised by assessee has to be adjudicated. Under s. 158BD of Act, if AO of person who was subjected to search is satisfied that any undisclosed income belongs to any person, other than person with respect to whom search was made under s. 132, then he has to handover to AO having jurisdiction over such other person and that AO shall proceed under s. 158BC against such other person. Under s. 158BE(2) time-limit for completion of block assessment in case of other person referred to above is 2 years from end of month in which notice under s. 158BD is served on such other person. question that has been raised by assessee before us is as to whether AO of other person can issue notice under s. 158BD at any time i.e. well beyond reasonable time from date on which he receives intimation from AO of person who was subjected to search under s. 132 of Act. In present case AO of assessee has issued notice under s. 158BD to assessee on 4th Dec., 2001 i.e. after period of 23 months and 10 days from time when he received intimation from AO of person who was subjected to search. Similar question had arisen for consideration before Delhi Bench of Tribunal in case of R.S. Bansal vs. Asstt. CIT [IT(SS)A No. 12/Del/2007] and Tribunal held as follows: "The next question to be addressed is whether notice under s. 158BD requires to be issued within reasonable time and if it is not so issued, whether assessment made pursuant to notice is liable to be set aside on that ground. contention of learned representative for assessee, it may be recalled, was that notice should have been issued at least within reasonable time after completion of assessment of searched person. In present case, block assessment of Manoj Aggarwal was completed on 29th Aug., 2002 but notice under s. 158BD was issued only on 22nd March, 2004, that is about 19 months later. further contention based on judgment of Gujarat High Court in Khandubhai Vasanji Desai s case (supra) was that notice should be issued within 15 days from date of completion of block assessment in case of searched person or at any rate within 60 days from that date, sanctity behind this period being provisions of s. 132(9A). In Khandubhai s case, Gujarat High Court referred to time-limit of 15 days having regard to fact that under s. 132(9A) as it stood at relevant time authorised officer who conducted search against person has to handover books of account, documents and assets seized to ITO having jurisdiction over person to whom books of accounts, documents and assets seized relate, within 15 days of seizure and thereafter AO is required to serve notice on such person to whom books of account etc. relate requiring him to furnish block return under s. 158BC. Gujarat High Court was concerned with constitutional validity of s. 158BD of Act and one of contentions was expressed in form of apprehension that notice under s. 158BD can be issued by AO in case of other person (other than person who was searched) at any time. While repelling this contention and putting at rest apprehension saying that it is ill founded, Gujarat High Court held that notice under s. 158BD has to be issued within reasonable period from date of search itself and it was pointed out, taking cue from s. 132(9A), that it should be done within 15 days of seizure. obvious implication is that satisfaction that income reflected in seized material belongs to some person other than person searched should also be reached within aforesaid period of 15 days so that same can be transmitted along with books of account, documents, etc. seized during search. period of 15 days has been amended, to 60 days by Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f. 1st June, 2002. It is noteworthy that amendment had come into force even during pendency of block assessment proceedings in case of Manoj Aggarwal. However, even after completion of block assessment of Manoj Aggarwal on 29th Aug., 2002, AO of assessee took about 19 months to issue notice under s. 158BD. period of 60 days mentioned in s. 132(9A) is actually for handing over books of account etc. to AO having jurisdiction over person who is person other than person searched and it actually starts from date of search. period was highlighted by Gujarat High Court only to emphasise speed and swiftness within which proceedings should be taken against such persons. That object does not appear to have been achieved in present case in view of unreasonable delay in issuing notice under s. 158BD not only after date of search but also after date of completion of block assessment of Manoj Aggarwal. Even if period of 60 days is to be reckoned from 15th July, 2003, date on which AO of Manoj Aggarwal wrote letter to AO of Radhey Shyam Bansal, there is delay of almost 8 months before issue of notice under s. 158BD. In such circumstances, we hold that notice having been issued well beyond reasonable period of time, assessment made on assessee is bad in law." As can be seen from above order of Tribunal, period of 19 months was considered as not reasonable time by Tribunal in aforesaid case for issue of notice under s. 158BD from date of receipt of information by AO. Tribunal had placed reliance on decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in case of Khandubhai Vasanji Desai & Ors. vs. Dy. CIT (1998) 150 CTR (Guj) 577: (1999) 236 ITR 73 (Guj). In our view facts of present case stands on same footing as that of case decided by Tribunal referred to above. Respectfully following order of Tribunal we hold that order of block assessment deserves to be annulled. We hold accordingly. In view of above, we deem it unnecessary to deal with other grounds of appeal on merits. In result, appeal by assessee is allowed. *** TAHIL RAM MOOLCHANDANI v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX