9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there is no satisfaction note recorded in the case of the searched person which is a condition precedent for issue of notice u/s 153C although the Assessing Officer of the searched person and the other person is the same. In view of the above discussion and detailed reasoning given by the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue, we find no infirmity in his order in quashing the proceedings initiated under section 153C of the Act by the Assessing Officer. The grounds raised by the Revenue are accordingly dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... books, then with regard to the unaccounted transaction it cannot be accepted that the transaction never happened. Hence, the contention of the assessee that the said payment in cash was not made is not acceptable." 4. Before the CIT(A), it was argued that noting found at the page 3 of the Annexure A-15, which is the basis of addition were neither written by the assessee nor by its employees. The contents of the said page are not based on facts. It was argued that the purchase consideration of Sunder Nagar property was only ₹ 33 Crores and not ₹ 36.51 Crores and there is no evidence on record that assessee has paid cash of ₹ 3.5 Crores as alleged by the Revenue. It was further argued that there are certain factual inconsistency in the said note since at one place total consideration is mentioned ₹ 36.51 Crores where the payment worked out only ₹ 36 Crores. 5. It was argued that in order to invoke the provisions of section 153C of the Act, the Assessing Officer of the searched person must be "satisfied" that any document seized should belong to "a person other than the person who has been searched". Only after such satisfaction is arrived at the docume ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id satisfaction note is reproduced below for ready reference: A search was conducted on Shri. K.S. Dhingra and Shri G.S. Dhingra on 16.09.2011. The search action was conducted u/s 132 of' the IT Act 1961. During the course of such proceedings documents belonging M/s Advantage Housing Pvt. Ltd. were found and seized at the premises of chamber of Shri. Kuldeep Singh Dhingra and Shri G.S. Dhingra 19, DDA Commercial Complex, Zamrudpur, Kailash Colony Extention, Greater Kailash Part-1, New Delhi including 1st Floor of this building. The documents are described below:- Page No. 34-54, Annexure A-23, party KGO :- These pages show the sale deed and other documents like indemnity bond, possession letter etc. regarding sale of property at 58, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi by M/s Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. to M/s Advantage Housing Pvt. Ltd. for a consideration of ₹ 33.00 crores on 28.08.208 Page No. 62-77, Annexure AA-4, party KGO:- These pages show the agreement to sell made at New Delhi on 10.07.2008 between Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd., the vendor on the one part and M/s Advantage Housing Pvt. Ltd., as vendee on the other part. The vendor have agreed to transfer assign in fav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vailable with the appellant. 4.3.21. In the above background, it is noted that the satisfaction noted by the A.O. describes photocopies of the documents which do contain name of the appellant as purchaser 6f the property concern. These are not the originals of the documents and only photocopies. The AO has stated in the satisfaction note that during the course of search at the premises of Sh. K.S.Dhingra & Sh. G.S.Dhingra, the above said documents belonging to the appellant were found and seized and that he was satisfied that in accordance with the provisions of section 153C of the Act, proceedings to assess/re-assess the income of the assessee for A.Y. 2006-07 to A.Y. 11-12 have to be initiated. However, there is no reason or justification given in the note as to why he was coming to the conclusion that the documents belonged to the appellant. 4.3.22. I have considered the satisfaction note of the AO. It suffers from defects due to the law as pronounced by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. In the case of Pepsi Food (P) Ltd. (Supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that mere use or mention of the word "satisfaction" or the word "I am satisfied" in the satisfaction note ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not expressed any reasons in arriving at such a conclusion. He does not say as to how he has felt that the photocopies of the sale deed etc. did not belong to the party who was searched and that the same belonged to the appellant. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that the said satisfaction should be very much emanating from the note made before issuing notice u/s 153C. The relevant para 11 & 12 of the order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pepsi Foods Pvt Ltd vs ACIT (Supra) is reproduced below for ready reference: "11. It is evident from the above satisfaction note that apart from saying that the documents belonged to the petitioner and that the Assessing Officer is satisfied that it is a fit case for issuance of a notice under Section 153C, there is nothing which would indicate as to how the presumptions which are to be normally raised as indicated above, have been rebutted by the Assessing Officer. Mere use or mention of the word "satisfaction" or the words "I am satisfied" in the order or the note would not meet the requirement of the concept of satisfaction as used in Section 153C of the said Act. The satisfaction note itself must display the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A). He submitted that in this case no satisfaction note was recorded in the case of the searched person but it was recorded only in the case of assessee. The so called documents which are seized from the searched party are nothing but photocopies of the sale deed and agreement to sale and possession letter, etc and the original documents are still available with the assessee. He submitted that before issuing notice under section 153C of the Act, it is a condition precedent that the satisfaction note should also be recorded in the case of the searched person, even though the Assessing Officer of the searched person and the other person is the same. Since, in instant case, no such satisfaction has been recorded in the case of the searched party, therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer under section 153C in the case of the assessee is bad in law. 10. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the authorities below and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the Assessing Officer on the basis of certain documents found and seized from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
