9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 633X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h. Ashwani Taneja, Adv And Sh. Shantnu Jain, Adv For The Respondent : Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 11/03/2013 passed by CIT(A)-XXXIII, New Delhi. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A)-33 has erred by confirming the action U/S 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the appellant in the absence of seizure of any valuable article or thing or books of accounts or documents during search at the premises of M/S Surya properties. 2. That Ld. CIT(A)-33 has erred by confirming the addition of ₹ 2,00,000/- as undisclosed income of the appellant on the basis of a loose paper seized during search at the premises of M/S. Surya Properties without appreciating the facts of the case in proper perspective. The Ld. CIT(A)-33 failed to appreciate the fact that no evidence direct or corroborative for the additional income was found, no cognizance of the assessment orders of other investors noted on that loose paper was taken and also no opportunity for cross examination of the search ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the copies of the material, same was examined and it was found that these documents actually belong to the assessee i.e. M/s. Shree Radhey Technologies Pvt. Ltd. based on this, vide order sheet entry dated 25.09.2008 independently recorded the satisfaction and accordingly, Notice u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee on 07.11.2008 25.09.2008 respectively for A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07. In response to the same, the assessee filed his return of income on 20.10.2008 declaring a loss of ₹ 3,240/- for A.Y. 2005-06 and on 19.11.2008 declaring a loss of ₹ 35,130/- for A.Y. 2006-07. The Assessing Officer held that the contents of page 35 are actual transactions and the amounts mentioned thereon were the sale consideration received by the assessee. Out of the said sale consideration, the assessee has not accounted for an amount of ₹ 1,22,50,000/- and accordingly held the same as undisclosed income of the assessee and added the same to the income of the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee field appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that documents seize ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reate an additional fiscal burden on a person. It would never be done by invoking the provisions of another act possible; the court ordinarily would interpret the provisions in favour of a taxpayer and against the revenue. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Renu Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.499/2011 dated 06.09.2017) wherein it is held that the seized documents should belong to a person other than the person referred to in Section 153A of the Act and in the present case the seized documents itself does not belong to the assessee which can be seen from the records. The Assessing Officer has also not proved that the document belong to the assessee. Therefore, the action under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the assesee in the absence of seizure of any valuable article or thing or books of accounts or documents during search at the premises of M/S Surya properties itself is bad in law. 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and order of the CIT(A). The Ld. DR relied upon the decisions of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in cases of PCIT vs. Super Malls Pvt. Ltd. 393 ITR 557, PCIT vs. Nau Nidh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eas 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 the aforementioned three decisions, reiterated the settled legal position as explained in Pepsico India Holdings P. Ltd. v. ACIT [2015] 370 ITR 295 (Del), that for the purpose of initiating proceedings under Section 153C of the Act, the seized documents had to be shown to belong to the other person and not merely pertaining to such other person. The change brought about in this regard in Section 153 C of the Act by way of amendment has been given prospective effect from 1st June 2015. The amended provision therefore has no application to the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
