9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1012X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion and the same are hereby quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA Nos. 5986 to 5991/Del/2013, C.O. Nos. 329 to 334/DEL/2014 - - - Dated:- 18-3-2015 - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH B NEW DELHI Shri N.K. Saini And Shri George George K.JJ. 18.03.2015 ITA Nos. 5986 to 5991/Del/2013, C.O. Nos. 329 to 334/DEL/2014 DCIT Versus M/s. Extra Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Appellant by : Smt. Poonam, Khaira Sidhu, CIT,DR Respondent by: Sh. Arvind Kumar, Advocate ORDER PER BENCH: 1. These appeals, at the instance of the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee, arise out of six separate orders of CIT(A), all passed in the month of August, 2013. The relevant assessment years are 2003-04 to 2008-09. 2. In Revenue s appeals, identical grounds are raised except for variation in figures. Two effective grounds raised in Revenue s appeals relate to: i) Whether the CIT (A) was justified in deleting the disallowances of expenditure made by the AO; . ii) Whether the CIT (A) was justified in deleting the additions made on account of unexplained purchases u/s 69C of the Act. 3. In the assessee s cross objec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese cross objections and accordingly we proceed to dispose of the cross objections on merit. 5. At the very outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee, referring to the grounds raised in the COs, submitted that the assessments made u/s 153C of the Act were invalid, since satisfaction was not recorded by the AO in the files of the searched person prior to initiation of proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. The said issue, it was submitted, was covered in favour of the assessee by the orders of the Coordinate Benches of this Tribunal which, in turn, had placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd v. ACIT reported in 367 ITR (673)/122 (Del) . 6. The ld. DR present was duly heard. The ld. DR has given a written submission with reference to the issues raised by the ld. AR. 7. In rejoinder, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the written submission filed in the instant case is identical to the written submission filed by the Revenue in the case of Tanvir Finance Leasing Ltd. in ITA Nos. 14 to 17/Del/2014 CO Nos.399 400/Del/2014 order dated 27.02.2015. It was submitted by the Ld. AR after c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refer to your application on the above mentioned subject. 2. From the assessment records of Sh. Bhupesh Kumar Dhingra which is covered under section 153A, for the asst. years from 2003-04 to 2008-09 (block period), it is noticed that there is no satisfaction note available/recorded in respect of other entities. Similar letter addressed to the other searched persons, namely, Smt. Poonam Dhingra and M/s. Madhusudan Buildcon Pvt. Ltd are also placed on record at pages 4 and 5 of the PB filed by the assessee. 10. The contention of the ld. Counsel of the assessee was that it is apparent from the assessment records of the searched entities that the required satisfaction Note under section 153C of the Act was not recorded by the assessing officer of the searched persons/entities. 11. This issue raised by the Ld. counsel for the assessee is no longer res integra. The Co-ordinate Benches of this Tribunal have considered an identical issue to that of the present matter under dispute in their orders. The details of the orders of the earlier Benches of this Tribunal are as under: (i) Tanvir Collections Pvt. Ltd v. ACIT [ITA No.2421/Del/2014 dated: 16.1.2015]; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Street No. 18, Krishna Park, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi which has not been covered u/s 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly, in terms of provisions of sec. 153C of the Act, notices u/s 153C are hereby issued for the A.Y. 2003-04 to 2008-09 in the case of M/s Tanveer Finance Leasing Ltd. The case was centralized in the Central Circle - 17, New Delhi vide orders dated 03.11.2009 of CIT-VI, New Delhi. Sd/- DCIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi 5. The view canvassed by the ld. AR is that no satisfaction was recorded by the AO of the three persons searched and the above satisfaction was recorded in the file of and by the AO of the assessee only. To substantiate this contention, the ld. AR invited our attention towards pages 10A to 10C of the paper book, being copies of the reply given by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-17, New Delhi in response to the applications filed by Sh. B.K. Dhingra, Smt. Poonam Dhingra and M/s Madhusudan Buildcon P. Ltd. under the provisions of RTI Act, 2005. The relevant part of the reply given to Sh. B.K. Dhingra, which is similar to that given to the other two persons also, is reproduced as under: 2. From the assessment recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... three persons, viz., Sh. B.K. Dhingra, Smt. Poonam Dhingra M/s Madhusudan Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., were searched in all the above cases and the AOs of those assessees recorded satisfaction in the same manner as has been done in the instant case. No satisfaction was recorded by the AOs of the persons searched. All the submissions made before us are similar to those made in the above cases. Since there is no difference in the facts and legal position of the cases under consideration vis-a-vis those already considered and decided by the Tribunal, respectfully following the precedents, we set aside the assessment and the consequential impugned orders on the ground of lack of proper jurisdiction of the AO. 10. Before parting with these appeals, we would like to record some further arguments made by the ld. DR. She vehemently argued that the Appraisal report clearly mentions that the assessee was to be taxed u/s 153C along with other several persons and the persons searched were liable to tax u/s 153A. In this view of the matter, she contended that such appraisal report should be considered as depicting a satisfaction. 11. We are unable to accept this submission because an Appraisal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tribunal, we prefer to go with a view taken by the Tribunal in these decisions. 16. As regards the proposal of the Revenue to file Miscellaneous application in the case of Tanvir Collection, we find that no such Miscellaneous application has so far been filed. Further, the contention that the order in the case of Inlay Marketing is per incurium, has been dealt with by the tribunal in the case of Tanvir Collection, by holding that there is no flaw in such order. 17. The other objections taken by the ld. DR in her written submissions are nothing but reiteration of the points argued earlier, which have been elaborately dealt with in the above referred tribunal orders. 18. In view of the foregoing discussion and respectfully following the above tribunal orders, we set aside the assessment and the impugned orders for the reason that the AO of the persons searched, namely, Sh. B.K. Dhingra, Smt. Poonam Dhingra M/s Madhusudan Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. did not record any satisfaction that some money, bullion, jewellery or books of account or other documents found from these persons belonged to the assessee. The absence of such satisfaction, in our considered opinion, did not translate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
