9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding of document in the premises of Amrapali Group does not constitute that the document to be belonging to the assessee. AO cannot merely on presumption states that the seized documents are that of assessee. Firstly, the Assessing Officer has to establish that the seized documents belong to the assessee which the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) failed to looked into. - Decided against revenue - ITA No. 3487/DEL/2014 - - - Dated:- 28-2-2018 - Shri G. D. Agrawal, President And Ms Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member Appellant by SH. Anil Kumar Jain, AR Respondent by Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT(DR) ORDER Per Suchitra Kamble This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 23/05/2014 passed by CIT(A)-1, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tment. Based on this document, the Assessing Officer recorded satisfaction and initialed proceedings u/s 153C in the case of the assessee. Return declaring loss of ₹ 13,869/- was originally filed on 4.09.2008. Notice u/s 153C was issued on 29.01 2013, and in response the assessee filed a letter on 18.02.2013 stating that the original return be treated as return in response to the said notice. Notice u/s 143(2) u/s 142(1) with questionnaire was issued on 25.02.2013. Another notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 22 43.2013. The case was assessed at an income of ₹ 9,86,131/- after making additions/ disallowances. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assssee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that where satisfaction note was recorded by the Assessing Officer of searched person who also happened to be Assessing Officer of the assessee (other person) to effect that seized documents belonged to assessee, issuance of notice under Section 153C against assessee on basis of said note was justified. The Ld. DR relied upon the decision PCIT vs. Sheetal International Pvt. Ltd. (2017-TIOL-1355-HC-DEL-IT) wherein it is held by the Hon ble Delhi High Court that proceedings u/s 153C cannot be invalidated, merely because the Assessing Officer of the searched party who was also that of the assessee, did not record a separate satisfaction note. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. It is pertinent to note that in let ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are that of assessee. Firstly, the Assessing Officer has to establish that the seized documents belong to the assessee which the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) failed to looked into. The case laws referred by the Ld. DR is only on the principle that the satisfaction recorded by the officer issuing notice u/s 153 C is sufficient if the AO of the searched person and third party are same. But the same will not be applicable in the present case as the Assessing Officer has failed to looked into the seized documents whether belongs to assessee or not. Thus, the proceedings u/s 153C itself becomes bad in law and the assessment order is quashed and there is no need to adjudicate the issue on merit. 8. In result, appeal of the assessee is p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
