9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see is not in accordance with provisions of section 153C wherein satisfaction note in the searched persons proceeding has to be recorded separately. The Ld. DR from the records has not submitted the proper satisfaction except pointing out that the name of the assessee is mentioned in the satisfaction note. In response to notice u/s 153C, the assessee filed return declaring income of Nil on 20.12.2012. All these contentions were dealt with by the CIT(A) while giving finding to that extent with reasoned order. The case laws referred by the Ld. DR that of PCIT vs. Sheetal International Pvt. Ltd. [ 2017 (7) TMI 738 - DELHI HIGH COURT] , PCIT vs. Instronics Ltd. [ 2017 (5) TMI 1426 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Ganpati Fincap Services (P) Ltd. vs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal. 3. The assessee is a company incorporated on 14.01.2005 to carry on business of Real Estate. The assessee filed return u/s 139(1) relevant to the A.Y. 2007-08 on 30th March 2008 declaring income of Rs. Nil. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961. No assessment was thereafter made u/s 143(3)/144 and thus the order u/s 143(1) became final. Thereafter search u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted by the investigation wing of the Department on 22.03.2011 in the Amtek group of cases. The assessee s case was proposed for centralization by the investigation wing on the basis o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of jurisdiction u/s 153C, therefore, the matter may be decided on merit by the CIT(A) and the issues be restored back to the file of the CIT(A) to be decided on merit. The Ld. DR pointed out on Para 3.3 wherein the CIT(A) mentioned that a perusal of above satisfaction notice reveals that on the top of the satisfaction note the name of the appellant is written as the name of the assessee. Therefore, it is apparent that satisfaction note is written in the file of the appellant in state of persons searched. Further at the end of the satisfaction note, it is written that the notice u/s 153C is issued to M/s. Gracious Projects Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, apparently the satisfaction note u/s 153C is recorded in appeal file and not in the file of the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. But against the same amount two cheques bearing numbers 15686 dated 09-02-2007 for ₹ 3 crores and other cheque no. 15689 dated 13-02- 2007 for ₹ 3.28 crores the both of J K Ltd. were mentioned with the name of M/s Thermax Construction Udyog Ltd. The only amount that was paid by the assessee by way of loan and advances is arising out of the joint venture contractual agreement was ₹ 6.28 crores only, which has been duly shown as loans and advances in books of accounts. The Assessing officer without any evidence held that these papers belong to the assessee and issued notice u/s 153C to the assessee. None of the seized documents was prepared by assessee as per the contention of the assessee before the Assessing Officer. Ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
