9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 599 - AT - Income TaxAssessment u/s 153A - incriminating seized document suggesting that share capital/share application money were non-genuine found or not? - HELD THAT - As in this case, there is no seized incriminating material. List of shareholders by no stretch of imagination can be said to be incriminating material. Hence, jurisdiction assumed is not as per law. The fact that no incriminating material for the year was seized has not been disputed by the Revenue. Hence, we allow the ground raised.
Issues involved:
The judgment involves appeals by the Revenue and cross objections by the assessee arising out of a common order of ld. CIT (A)-4, Kanpur dated 22.11.2021 pertaining to the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14. Assessment Year 2012-13: - The DCIT, Central Circle, Noida illegally assumed jurisdiction to initiate proceedings u/s 153C. - The assessment proceedings are liable to be quashed because the notice u/s 153C was not served upon the assessee. - The assessment proceedings are liable to be quashed because the satisfaction note was not supplied to the assessee. - The assessment proceedings are liable to be quashed because the DCIT, Central Circle, Noida had not established that the assessing officer of the searched party had recorded his satisfaction. - The DCIT erred in making an addition of Rs. 2,05,00,000/- u/s 68 on account of Share Capital and Share Application Money. - The DCIT erred in charging interest u/s 234B at Rs. 31,92,588/-. Assessment Year 2013-14: - The DCIT, Central Circle, Noida illegally assumed jurisdiction to initiate proceedings u/s 153C. - The assessment proceedings are liable to be quashed because the notice u/s 153C was not served upon the assessee. - The assessment proceedings are liable to be quashed because the satisfaction note was not supplied to the assessee. - The assessment proceedings are liable to be quashed because the DCIT, Central Circle, Noida had not established that the assessing officer of the searched party had recorded his satisfaction. - The DCIT erred in making an addition of Rs. 6,15,00,000/- u/s 68 on account of Share Capital. - The DCIT erred in charging interest u/s 234B at Rs. 71,95,377/-. Cross Objections: - The CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in passing the assessment order u/s 144/153C without assuming jurisdiction as per law. - The action of the CIT(A) in confirming the assessment order u/s 144/153C is illegal and not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds. - The satisfaction recorded u/s 153C is not in accordance with the law. - The addition made in the order is beyond jurisdiction and illegal. - The CIT(A) ought to have quashed the assessment order passed by the AO without the requisite approval u/s 153D. Brief Facts: For A.Y. 2012-13, a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 09.10.2013. The AO completed the assessment ex-parte by making additions. For A.Y. 2013-14, a similar operation was conducted, and the assessment was also completed ex-parte with additions. The CIT(A) deleted the additions on merits. The Revenue filed appeals, and the assessee raised jurisdictional issues in cross objections. Judgment: The submissions of the assessee highlighted that no incriminating material was found during the search, and the jurisdiction assumed was not as per law. The case laws cited supported the contention that the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C was not valid. The Revenue did not offer any comment on the jurisdictional aspect. The Tribunal allowed the cross objections on the jurisdictional aspect, rendering the issues on merits raised by the Revenue as academic. Consequently, the cross objections filed by the assessee were allowed, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as infructuous.
|
