9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Assessing Officer of the searched person is being not recorded, then no assessment under Section 153C is sustainable. These appeals are lying in the Tribunal since 2012 and the Department has filed paper-book, but failed to place on record the copy of the satisfaction note. Putting reliance on the submissions of the assessee and, in the absence of any details, we are satisfied that the assessment order is not sustainable. See M/S. Calcutta Knitwears [ 2014 (4) TMI 33 - SUPREME COURT ] - Decided in favour of assessee. - IT(SS)A No. 441/Ahd/2012, 495/Ahd/2012 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) - - - Dated:- 5-8-2019 - SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Revenue by: Shri O P Sharma, CIT-DR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certain loose papers were found at 131/3, Kabutar Khana, Chokha Bazar, Kalupur, Ahmedabad and he assumed that three concerns owned by the assessee were operating from this address. These papers alleged to have been related or belonging to the assessee. He noted the details of those concerns on page no. 2 of the assessment order which reads as under:- Name of the concern Owner Nature of business activity M/s. Shivam Pharma Narendra Naranlal Thakkar HUF Trading in pharmaceuticals M/s. Thakkar Naranlal Devaram Shri Narendra Naranlal Thakkar Sarafi M/s. C.T. Corporatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the other person, i.e. assessee in the present case, for taking the assessment proceedings. In the absence of any satisfaction note, no cognizance under Section 153C could be taken by the Assessing Officer. He further contended that identical situation was provided under Section 158BD of the Income-tax Act and Hon ble Supreme Court has considered this aspect in the case of CIT vs. M/S. Calcutta Knitwears, reported in 362 ITR 673 (SC). He also made reference to the following Tribunal orders:- i. Zaidun Leeng SDN BHD Artefact Projects Ltd v. Dy. CIT, [2017] 186 TTJ (Nagpur) 91 ii. Asstt. CIT v. Jay Dee Securities Finance Ltd, [2017] 57 ITR (Trib.) 681 / 188 TTJ 593 (Delhi) iii. Dy CIT vs. KM Nagaraj [2017] 166 ITD 53 / 189 TTJ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
