9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1677X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has been seized. The documents are self speaking and are given graphic picture of the modus operandi adopted by the parties involved. It is quite disturbing to note the ease with which the assessee has been conducting its affairs transforming its unaccounted money into regular transactions. It needs to be emphasized here that these transactions have not taken place in a period of one or two months but are spread over a period of 43 months for different entities of the Today Group running into approximately more than 1000 individual transactions. The law allows the Assessing Officer to lift the corporate veil to unmask the real from the apparent and also to go behind the transaction to understand their true import. The law also allows the authorities to test the transactions on a touches tone of human probability to arrive at a conclusion which the rationale mind would arrive at. After going behind the transactions on paper and after lifting the corporate veil, as in earlier paragraphs, it has been proved that the apparent was not real. 2. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made u/s 68 of the Act on account of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Undisputedly, proceedings u/s 153C were initiated on the basis of documents seized during the search and seizure operation conducted on 26.11.2009. It is also not in dispute that the assessee has opted to treat his return of income filed on 31.05.2006 as its reply to the notice. 6. It is also not in dispute that the AO has made detailed discussion in the assessment order as to the existence of shell companies controlled by Gambhirs and Jain Brothers. It is also not in dispute that it is the case of the assessee that assessee has received an amount of Rs. 4,66,00,000/- from M/s. BJ Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. during FY 2005-06 relevant to AY 2006-07. 7. It is also not in dispute that the AO in his satisfaction note dated 06.06.2011 relied upon one Agreement to Sell dated 05.05.2016 for Rs. 5,01,51,000/- only entered into between UTI and Nahind Finlease Pvt. Ltd. for office space no.A-1601 and B-1601 at 16th Floor of Statesman House, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi in order t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ularly para 1.5 (J) at page 54, the AO has based the entire addition on the ground that the amount of Rs. 4,66,00,000/- has been found credited in the books of account of the assessee and the immediate source of this amount has been found to be from M/s. BJ Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Thereafter, the amount has been shown to be sourced from different entities of Jain Brothers and as such failed to pass the test of genuineness of the transactions u/s 68 of the Act. 11. First of all, the addition has not been made on the basis of satisfaction note (supra) wherein incriminating material is "Agreement to Sell" dated 05.05.2006 for Rs. 5,01,51,000/- between UTI Limited and Nahind Finlease and there is no reference to any alleged transactions between assessee and BJ Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.. Ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition on the ground that the documents on the basis of which proceedings u/s 153C were initiated have already been disclosed by the assessee before AO vide submission dated 14.11.2011, available at pages 73 to 93 of the paper book. 12. Assessee brought on record, vide letter dated 14.11.2011, documents, viz., (i) complete address & PAN of BJ Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.; (ii) confirmation sign ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2009-10 by initiating the proceedings u/s 153C which was also deleted by the ld. CIT (A) and the said order has been upheld by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA Nos.4822 to 4824/Del/2014 order dated 22.01.2018 by returning following findings :- "15. Considering the facts of the case, in the light of the above decisions, it is clear that in terms of section 153C of the Act, the AO should be satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles or things or books of accounts or documents seized or requisition belong or belongs to a person other than the person referred to in section 153A of the Act and he shall hand over the seized documents to the AO having jurisdiction over that person. Therefore, the satisfaction of the AO before initiating proceedings u/s 153C is must that the seized documents which are incriminating in nature belong or belongs to the assessee so as to proceed u/s 153C of the Act. The copy of the satisfaction note recorded by the AO u/s 153C is filed at page 71 of the Paper Book. In this satisfaction note, the AO has referred to the seized annexures/documents which is agreement for sale dated 05.05.2006 for Rs. 5,01,51,000/- between ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
