9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 829X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the proceedings u/s 153C could not have been validly initiated against the appellant company. Such findings of ours get support from the judgement of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANOTHER [2014 (8) TMI 898 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - hence the Tribunal accordingly quashed the assessment framed u/s 153C since it was found that seized documents recovered from N.K.G. did not belong to the said assessee - Decided in favor of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notings appeared in respect of payments made to various persons. According to the Ld. CIT(A), the notings on pages 35 and 38 suggested that abbreviations 'TIPL' on these pages represented the appellant i.e. Tycoons Industries Pvt. Ltd. The Ld. CIT(A) also referred to seized documents AVR-2 pages 15 to 24 which were account print out of M/s. S.K.S. Infrastructure Ltd. having its address at 11, British Indian Street, Kolkata - 700 069. Referring to this seized documents, the learned AR submitted that pages 35 and 38 of AVR-2 contained rough notings relating to Evacuation Account. One entry referred to three bills of TIPL for dozer hire charges for December 2006, January/February 2007 for ₹ 8,54,876/-. Another two entries stated as follows: "Paid to TIPL against bills vide cheque dated 30- ₹ 8,45,283/- Paid to TIPL as advance against dozer bills to be submitted in April/May/June/July 2007 ₹ 1,55,000/- Total ₹ 10,00,283/- 4. Referring to these notings on pages 35 and 38, the learned AR pointed out that these documents were seized from the business premises of Naresh Kumar Group (NKG) and not from the appellant. The notings referred to bills of 'TIPL' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person [for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search in conducted or requisition is made and for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub-section (1) of section 153A." 6. According to the learned DR for invocation of section 153C, it was no longer necessary to prove that the seized documents belonged to the assessee but it was sufficient to show that the seized documents pertains or information contained therein relate to the assessee. The learned DR, therefore, requested for dismissal of the appellant's preliminary plea challenging the validity of the proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. 7. In his rejoinder, the learned AR pointed out that there was an amendment to the relevant provisions of section 153C which was enacted by the Finance Act 2015 and the word "relevant" was made to section 153C. Prior to the amendment in 2015, the relevant section 153C was as under: "Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the discussion in the assessment orders, we however note that the authorities below have mainly dealt with pages 35 and 38 of AVR-2 which contained notings under the heading "Evacuation Account". The notings on page 35 and 38 certainly refer to 3 bills of TIPL and payment made to TIPL against such 3 bills. In the opinion of the lower authorities, the term "TIPL" used on pages 35 and 38 represented abbreviated form assessee's full name that is Tycoons Industries Pvt. Ltd. Even if one for argument sake accepts the presumption drawn by the authorities below to be correct, yet we find the notings recorded in seized documents make reference to the payments made to TIPL by the person to whom the document belonged to. Admittedly in the present case, the document was found from the premises of N.K.G. with whom TIPL was having business transactions. In the circumstances, if the documents seized from the custody of Sr. Officer of N.K.G referred to payments made to TIPL then the only logical inference that one can draw is that the seized document belonged to the person who had made payment to TIPL. Admittedly therefore such documents could not be presumed to be belonging to the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs get support from the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vijaybhai N. Chandrani (supra). We also note that the same issue was considered by the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Dhansar Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In that case also the name of the assessee was mentioned in the seized documents AVR-2 recovered from the premises of N.K.G. In that case also the name of assessee was found mentioned in the seized documents AVR-2 recovered from premises of N.K.G. In that case also the A.O. held that the seized documents belonged to M/s. Dhansar Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. and not of N.K.G. After examining the relevant material, Tribunal held that although the notings in the seized documents made reference to the name of third party i.e. M/s. Dhansar Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd but there was nothing in such seized documents to indicate that these documents belonged to M/s. Dhansar Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal accordingly quashed the assessment framed under section 153C against Dhansar Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd, since it was found that seized documents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
