9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 724X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 017 (8) TMI 1298 - SUPREME COURT] there was no justification to assume jurisdiction under section 153C of the I.T. Act, 1961. In view of the above, we set aside the Orders of the authorities below and quash the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA.Nos.6817 & 6818/Del./2013, Cross Objection Nos. 258 & 259/Del./2014 Arising out of ITA.Nos.6817 & 6818/Del./2013 - - - Dated:- 14-10-2019 - Shri Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member And Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri K. Sampat, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-D.R. ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. Both the Departmental Appeals as well as Cross Objections by Assessee are directed against the different Orders of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, New Delhi, Dated 17.10.2013 and 15.10.2013 for the 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, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ₹ 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 the explanation of assessee that there is no evidence on record with the A.O. to come to the conclusion that any payment over and above the stated price of shares have been paid to TIDCL. Further, these shares have been sold in subsequent A.Y. 2011-2012 and sale consideration have been accepted by the A.O. Therefore, there was no basis to make any addition. The addition was accordingly deleted. The Ld. CIT(A) also noted that since loss is booked by TIDCL, therefore, it needs investigation at the level of the A.O. in that case. The addition was accordingly deleted. 5. In the Departmental Appeal, the Revenue challenged the deletion of addition of ₹ 9,70,40,500/-. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 and 2 Balance sheet of the company as on 31.03.2008 dully signed by the Director of company and Chartered Accountant. A-1/party TA-3 34 and 35 Trial balance and sundry creditors of company 01.04.2010 to 28.09 2010. I have carefully examined and found that these documents belongs to M/s Prominent Realtech Pvt Ltd In view of above facts, I am satisfied that this is a case of a person other than the person referred to in section 153A covered under section 132 of the Income Tax Ac. 1961. Accordingly, I am satisfied that this is a fit case for initiation of proceedings u/s 153C r w. section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of M/s Prominent Realtech P. Ltd. Issue notice u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act. 1961 in the case of M/s Prominent Realtech Pvt Ltd accordingly for A.Y 2008-09 and A.Y. 2010-11 separately. Sd/-Subhash Verma, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 22, New Delhi. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce any material to show if anysuch satisfaction as required under section 153C was recorded by the Assessing Officer in 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. It is added further here that the Assessing Officer has not referred to any seized document or material in the assessment orders on the basis of which, additions on merit have been made. Therefore, the conditions of section 153Cas noted above are also not satisfied in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.248/Del./2014 of the Assessee is allowed. 10. In the result, appeal of the Department dismissed and Cross Objection of the Assessee allowed. ITA.No.6818/Del./2013 A.Y. 2008-2009 C.O.No.259/Del./2014 A.Y. 2008-2009 [ In the case of M/s Sunway Realtech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. ] 11. In the Departmental Appeal, Revenue challenged the deletion of addition of ₹ 7,71,24,500/- on account of unexplained investment. The assessee in the Cross Objection has challenged the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C of the I.T. Act, 1961. 12. Since issues are identical in both the matters, therefore, following the decision in the case of M/s. Prominent Realtech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi in ITA.No.6817/Del./2013 (supra), we dismiss the Departmental Appeal and allow the Cross Objection. 13. In the result, ITA.No.6818/Del./2013 of the Revenue dismissed and C.O.No.259/Del./2014 of the Assessee allowed. 14. To sum-up, both the appeals of the Department are dismissed and both the Cross Objections of the Assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
