9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 670X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 4568/Del/2009 for Assessment Year (AY) 2002-03. By an order dated 15th November 2011, while admitting these appeals, the following questions were framed for consideration by this Court: "1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in annulling the block assessment order? 2. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in presuming that the seized document did not belong to the respondent? 3. Whether the order of Income tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse in the facts and circumstances of the case?" 2. ITA Nos. 41 and 125 of 2017 are directed against a common order dated 10th December 2015 in ITA Nos. 41 and 42/Del/2010 for AYs 2000-01 and 2002-03. While admitting these appeals on 21st March 2017, this Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar Fincap Ltd. [2017] 393 ITR 378 and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-2) v. Nau Nidh Overseas Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 394 ITR 753 (Delhi) to urge that, notwithstanding the fact that the search in the present case took place prior to the amendment to Section 153C of the Act with effect from 1st June 2015, it is sufficient, for the purpose of initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of Act, that the seized documents pertained to the Assessee and did not have to be shown at that stage to be belonging to the Assessee. 7. Learned counsel for the Respondents-Assessees, on the other hand, pointed out that this Court has, in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-2) v. Vinita Chaurasia [2017] 394 ITR 758 (Del), after considering ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on and it is not necessary to show that the seized material 'belonged to' the other person. This legal position has been explained by this Court in its recent decision dated 10th July 2017 in W.P. (C) No. 3241/2015 (Canyon Financial Services Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer). 10. As far as ITA No. 499/2011 is concerned, the Court finds that there is an additional ground to reject the appeal of the Revenue. The satisfaction note recorded by the AO in that case does not even refer to the seized documents. 11. For the aforementioned reasons, Question No. 2 framed by the Court is answered in the negative, i.e. in favour of the Assessees and against the Revenue. 12. Consequently, Question No. 1 in ITA Nos. 499 of 2011 and ITA Nos. 32 and 35 of 2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
