9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 724X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he A.Y. 2008-2009. 2. We have heard the Learned Representatives of both the parties and perused the material on record. Both the parties mainly argued in the case of M/s. Prominent Real-Tech Pvt. Ltd., and have submitted that the issue is same in other case also, therefore, the Order in the case of M/s. Prominent Real-Tech Pvt. Ltd., may be followed in other appeals. Therefore, we decide appeal of M/s. Prominent Real-Tech Pvt. Ltd., as under. ITA.No.6817/Del./2013 - A.Y. 2008-2009 And CO.No.258/D/2014 - A.Y. 2008-2009 [ In the case of M/s. Prominent Real-Tech Pvt. Ltd., ] 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that A.O. passed the assessment order under section 153C read with section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, Dated 22.03.2013. In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 153C only on the basis of the incriminating material found during the course of search. However, no incriminating material was there, therefore, no addition can be made. It was further submitted that there is no evidence that assessee has made investment outside the books of account. There has to be some evidence for the undisclosed investment allegedly made by the assessee. Since there is no evidence available on record, therefore, whole addition is unjustified. It was further submitted that the shares were subsequently sold by the assessee company in F.Y. 2010-2011 for a sum of Rs. 1,39,59,500/- and this fact has been accepted by the A.O. in the assessment under section 143(3) for A.Y. 2011- 2012. The Ld. CIT(A) accepted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he absence of any evidence on record, no interference is called for. The Departmental Appeal is accordingly dismissed. 7. In the Cross Objections the assessee challenged the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C of the I.T. Act. Learned Counsel for the Assessee referred to satisfaction note, copy of which is filed at page-1 of the paper book of the Department, which reads as under : "INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NAME OF THE ASSESSEE : M/s Prominent Realtech Pvt STATUS : Company PAN : AAECP6096N Satisfaction note for initiating proceedings u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 A search & seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out on 28.09.2010 in Triveni Group by the ADIT (Inv.), Unit-III(3), New Del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not as per Law and no incriminating material is found against the assessee. He has relied upon Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs., Sinhgad Technical Education Society [2017] 397 ITR 344 (SC). He has also relied upon Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs., Radhey Shyam Bansal [2011] 337 ITR 217 (Del.) and Amity Hotels Pvt. Ltd., vs. CIT [2005] 272 ITR 75 (Del.). 8. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the Orders of the authorities below. 9. We have considered the rival submissions. Since addition on merit have already been deleted and confirmed by us, therefore, this issue is left with academic discussion only. However, briefly, we may point-out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of person searched. No material is produced in reference to above requirement. * No material is also produced before to show that books of account or documents or assets seized had been handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person. In the absence of any adequate material produced by the department contention of the assessee was justified that in this case, the Assessing Officer had not recorded any satisfaction that any seized document or material belongs to any person other person searched. * Since the revenue is in appeal, therefore, burden was upon them to prove that necessary ingredients of section 153C have been complied with in this case before invoking jurisdiction under section 153C. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent years. For six assessment years the assessment was under section 153C of the Act. The assessment order was set aside only in respect of four of those assessment years and on a technical ground. The objection pertaining to the four assessment years in question did not relate to the other tax assessment years, namely, 2004-05 and 2005-06. Nor did this decision have a bearing in respect of assessment for assessment year 1999-2000 or assessment year 2006-07. The necessary consequence would be that the conclusions of the Assessing Officer in his assessment order regarding the activities of the trust not being genuine and not carried out in accordance with the trust deed or cancellation of registration, denial of benefits of sections 11 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
