9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 1225 - AT - Income TaxAssessment u/s 153C - recording of satisfaction - CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the jurisdiction u/s 153C is not assumed properly - Papers found during the search of another person - AO wrote a satisfaction note, and held that these papers belong to the assessee and issued notice u/s 153C to the assessee. - HELD THAT - CIT(A) while giving the finding observed that the satisfaction note is not recorded in the file of the assessee searched u/s 132 and documents claimed to be owned by the assessee was transferred to the file of the assessee. Therefore, the jurisdiction assumed u/s 153C in the case of the assessee is not in accordance with provisions of section 153C wherein satisfaction note in the searched persons proceeding has to be recorded separately. The Ld. DR from the records has not submitted the proper satisfaction except pointing out that the name of the assessee is mentioned in the satisfaction note. In response to notice u/s 153C, the assessee filed return declaring income of Nil on 20.12.2012. All these contentions were dealt with by the CIT(A) while giving finding to that extent with reasoned order. The case laws referred by the Ld. DR that of PCIT vs. Sheetal International Pvt. Ltd. 2017 (7) TMI 738 - DELHI HIGH COURT , PCIT vs. Instronics Ltd. 2017 (5) TMI 1426 - DELHI HIGH COURT and Ganpati Fincap Services (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 2017 (5) TMI 1425 - DELHI HIGH COURT are factually distinguishable as in present assessee s case no satisfaction was recorded separately by the Assessing Officer of the searched person. Thus, these case laws will not be applicable in assessee s case. Therefore, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Issues:
Jurisdiction under section 153C not assumed properly, Appeal allowed without considering merits, Proper satisfaction for assumption of jurisdiction not given, Addition made by Assessing Officer challenged. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi concerned the Revenue challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals]-XXX for Assessment Year 2007-08. The primary issue revolved around the jurisdiction assumed under section 153C, where the Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without proper jurisdiction assumption. The Assessing Officer had issued a notice under section 153C to the assessee after conducting a search under section 132 based on documents found during the search. The Assessing Officer made an addition of ?8.70 crores, alleging that a certain amount was paid out of books. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee, leading to the Revenue's appeal before the ITAT. During the proceedings, it was noted that the satisfaction note for assuming jurisdiction under section 153C was not recorded in the file of the searched person but in the appeal file. The CIT(A) found that the jurisdiction assumed under section 153C was not in accordance with the provisions, as the satisfaction note in the searched person's proceedings should have been recorded separately. The assessee contended that the documents did not belong to them, and the Assessing Officer had assumed jurisdiction without proper evidence. The CIT(A) considered the contentions and case laws cited by the Revenue, distinguishing them based on the lack of a separate satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer of the searched person. Ultimately, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The ITAT found that the case laws cited by the Revenue were factually distinguishable from the present case, as no separate satisfaction was recorded by the Assessing Officer of the searched person. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the decision of the CIT(A) in favor of the assessee. In conclusion, the ITAT Delhi upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the importance of proper jurisdiction assumption under section 153C and the necessity of separate satisfaction notes for searched persons. The detailed analysis considered the contentions of both parties and concluded that the Revenue's appeal lacked merit in light of the specific circumstances of the case.
|
