9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, the assessee was not bound to explain the same. More so, when the details of seized material clearly show that it did not implicate the assessee of any investment made in the Samiti. As decided in CIT vs. Girsh Chaudhary [2007 (5) TMI 176 - DELHI HIGH COURT] that the seized paper would not indicate anything that the assessee made any undisclosed investment in Samiti and in absence of any specific material to link the assessee with any investment, no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) - in favour of assessee. - IT(SS) A. No. 03/& 04/Agra/2010 - - - Dated:- 28-9-2012 - SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, JJ. Appellant by : Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. D.R. Respondent by : Shri Mahesh Agarwal, C.A. ORDER Per Bhavnesh Saini, J.M.: Both the appeals by the Revenue are directed against the common order of ld. CIT(A), Gwalior dated 07.07.2010 for the assessment years 2001-02 and 2002- 03 on the following common grounds : 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.16,00,000/- and Rs.23,00,000/- for A.Y. 2001-02 2002-03 respectively on account of investment in Vatsal Shiksha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Gwalior in Sept. 2001 and have got no concern wtahtsoever with the said samiti since sept.2001 and handed over all the documents, papers, files, registers and books of accounts of the said samiti to the then secretary of the society Smt. Seema Jain W/o Sh. Sunil Chand Jain Alias Tilak Jain and the papers received at the time of search has got no concern with the assessee. He has also denied of having account with UCO Bank and about the cheque numbers mentioned in the said papers. He also stated that he invested Rs. 4,79,550/- is Vatsal Shiksha Samiti, and at the time of his retirement from the said samiti he received back the amount. Statement of the asseesee was recorded an oath wherein also the assesses has denied the investment of Rs. 39,00,000 at the same time he has agreed of his investment at Rs. 479550/-. He has not produced sufficient evidence for the investment in Vatsal Shiksha Samiti, and merely submitted affidavit and copy of return of income showing rental income and professional income only. In his statement also he denied of his involvement in Vatsal Shiksha Samiti and at the same time he has accepted as he worked in the capacity of President in the said samiti. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... person . As per records, the A.O. has received the seized documents pertaining to the appellant on 12.02.2009. Thus, the A.O. was empowered to initiate the proceedings for assessment / reassessment by issuing notice u/s 153C for and from the A.Y. 2003-04 onwards .No notices u/s 153C can be issued for the A.Y. 2001-02 and 2002-03 , as has been done by the A.O. Since the relevant assessment year is 2009-10 falling in the previous year 2008-09, the A.O. could reopen the assessment for six assessment years preceding this assessment year. They would be assessment year 2008-09, 2007-08, 2006-07, 2005-06 2004-05, and 2003-04. In view of provisions of section 153C which are abundantly clear, it is held that notice u/s 153C issued on 20.10.2009 for the assessment year under consideration is invalid and barred by limitation. Assessment framed in consequence thereof is held to be null and void. The same view has been held by H ble ITAT, Ahemdabad in case of Vijay M. vimawal Vs . ACIT ( 2009) 34 SOT (AHD)34 (URO ) in appeal no .1789 (AHD) of 2008 and 141 ( AHD ) of 2009 . Appeal of the appellant is allowed on this ground. 5. Coming to the merits of the case and addition of Rs. 16,00,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... files, registers, and books of account have been handed over to the then secretary of the society namely Mrs. Seema Jain w/o Shri Sunil Jain . The A.O. has not made any inquiry from the Registrar of Society/Firm, Gwalior or the present office bearers of the society. No opportunity has been given to the appellant to cross examine Shri Sunil Jain /Seema Jain from whose premises the documents have been seized and made the basis for the addition. The seized documents are also neither in the handwriting of the appellant nor contain any signature and have been found at the premises of the third party. There is no material and nexus to show that these loose papers belong to the appellant who has denied them as belonging to him. Further, the appellant has submitted the copy of his income tax return filed originally for the assessment year under consideration on 30.08.2001 whereby investment of Rs. 4,79,550/- in Vatsal Shiksha Samiti has been duly declared, the source of which is also found to be explained. The said amount has been received back by the appellant on his resignation from the Samiti. The AO has also not brought any adverse material on records after making any inquiry from U ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vs. Girsh Chaudhary, 296 ITR 619 held Held accordingly, dismissing the appeal, that there was no material on record to show on what basis the Assessing Officer had reached the conclusion that the figure 48 was to be read as Rs.48 lakhs. The document recovered during the course of search was a dumb document and led nowhere. The Tribunal had rightly deleted the addition of Rs.48 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer and the order of the Tribunal did not give rise to a question of law much less a substantial question of law. 5.1 The above judgment clearly supports the finding of the ld. CIT(A) that the seized paper would not indicate anything that the assessee made any undisclosed investment in Samiti. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances and in absence of any specific material to link the assessee with any investment, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting both the additions on merits. In the result, ground No. 1 of appeals of the Revenue is dismissed. 6. As regards the order of the ld. CIT(A) holding the assessment order framed as invalid and barred by limitation, he has relied upon the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
