9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8-9-2017 - SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT(DR) For The Respondent : None ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM These appeals are filed by the Revenue against the order dated 29/09/2014 passed by CIT(A)-XXXIII, New Delhi. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- ITA No. 140/DEL/2015 ( A.Y 2006-07) 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in law in holding that the jurisdiction assumed u/s 153C in the case of the assessee is not in accordance with law. 2. The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. ITA No. 141/DEL/2015 ( A.Y 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... declaring an income of ₹ 4,920/- was filed on 31/1/2013. Notice u/s 143(2) 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were issued along with a questionnaire dated 31/1/2013 duly served upon the assessee and case was fixed for hearing. In response to various statutory notices CA along with Vide President of Amtek Group of companies attended the proceedings and furnish necessary details information and documents called for from time to time which were placed on record by the Assessing Officer. In view of the information filed the case was discussed with the assessee s representatives. M/s Archon Estate Pvt. Ltd incorporated on 3rd day of January 2015 to carry on the business of real estate. During the course of search, certain documents were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... end on 31/3/2006 and 31/3/2008 by the Assessing Officer. It was found that share capital and share premium of ₹ 24,50,00,000/- and ₹ 51,00,00,000/- were introduced in the respective years during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee was asked to furnish the confirmations of the persons from whom the share capital was obtained along with their bank statements. The assessee submitted the confirmation of the share capital and share premium. In both the Assessment Years 2006-07 2008-09 which was received from its main group companies i.e. M/s Amtek India Ltd. in Assessment Year 2006-07 from M/s Amtek Crankshaft India Ltd. and M/s Amtek Ring Gears Ltd. in Assessment Year 2008-09. The assessee also explained in detail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocuments and material lying in that office. Hence, they advised to take decision based on the interpretation of the material available on record since the DDIT, Investigation Unit 1 which had no other incriminating documents in their possession apart from the statement of Shri Arvind Dham. The assessee filed the confirmations of the share capital and share premium in both the Assessment Year 2006-07 2008-09 which was received from which is main group companies i.e. M/s Amtek India Ltd. for Assessment Year 2006-07 and from M/s Amtek Crankshaft India Ltd. and M/s Amtek Ring Hear Ltd in Assessment Year 2008-09 respectively. The Assessing Officer, therefore, observed that the assessee proved the requirements of Section 68 of the Income Tax Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee, instead of person search and at the end of satisfaction note it was written that the notice u/s 153C issued to M/s Archon Estate Pvt. Ltd. Thus, the satisfaction note u/s 153C was recorded in assessee s file and not in the file of the person who was searched. Thus, the CIT(A) held that satisfaction note for initiation of proceedings u/s 153C was not recorded in the case of the person search u/s 132. The CIT(A) further held that the jurisdiction assessment u/s 153C in the case of the assessee was not in accordance with the findings of the ITAT in the case of DSL Properties Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the CIT(A) concluded that the jurisdiction u/s 153C was not assumed properly and in accordance with law as per the decision of the ITAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of DSL properties (P) Ltd cited supra. Therefore, it is concluded that the jurisdiction u/s 153C is not assumed properly and in accordance with the law as per the decision of Hon ble ITAT cited supra. Accordingly, the assessment order passed u/s 153C for all the assessment years are hereby quashed. 10. All the appeals are having similar issues. The CIT(A) has also not dealt the issue in respect of the merits of the case. The Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal CIT Vs. M/s NAU NIDH Overseas Pvt. Ltd. dated 3rd February 2017 wherein it is held that the satisfaction recorded by the Officer issuing notice u/s 153C is sufficient if the Assessing Officer of the search person and third party are the same. But in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
