9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 1020X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elhi- 110001 were also found and seized from the premises of M/s Excel Infotech Pvt Ltd & Others, 9, Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi in whose name search warrant of authorization was issued. The assessee's case was proposed for centralization by the Investigation Wing for coordinated investigation and assessment u/s 153C and subsequently it was centralized with Central Circle- 14, New Delhi vide order F.No CIT(C) Centr/2012- 13/239 dated 25.04.2012. Accordingly notice u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act was issued to the assessee on 08.11.2012. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed return of income on 05.02.2013 declaring a loss of Rs. 6,89,710/-. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted that during the course of search, certain documents were found and seized which were inventoried at Page 55-57 of Annexure A-3 and were seized from 9 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi which contains the details of finance to M/s Rangoli Buildtech Pvt. Ltd as on 29.01.2007. The page 57 shows the financing of the project undertaken jointly by M/s Rangoli Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. in the name of TDI Green, Sonipat. The first party was Sh Ravinder Taneja and S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be kept in the file of the other person. It was argued that the satisfaction note has been recorded in the case of the assessee only which is evident from two observations, i.e., (a) the name, address, PAN of the assessee is mentioned on the top of satisfaction note; and (b) At the end of the satisfaction note AO has mentioned that notice is issued in assessee's case. 6. Based on the arguments advanced by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) quashed the assessment order on the ground that the jurisdiction under section 153C has not been assumed properly. He noted that on the top of the satisfaction note the name and address with PAN of the assessee has been mentioned. The documents alleged to have belonged to the assessee as per satisfaction note were seized from the premises of two assesses, namely, M/s Excel Infotech Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Amtek Auto Ltd. If the satisfaction is recorded in the file of person searched, then how name of the other person not searched along with documents appeared in the said satisfaction note. This, according to him, proves that the satisfaction was not recorded in the file of the person searched. He further noted that at the end of the satisfaction note i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 153C are the same and the said AO has recorded satisfaction while issuing notice under section 153A read with section 153Cof the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or demand any/all of grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal." 8. The ld. DR strongly challenged the order of the CIT(A) in quashing the assessment proceedings passed under section 153C read with section 143(3). She submitted that the documents belonging to the assessee has been found in the premises of the person searched. Further, the AO of the person searched and the documents belonging to the other party are one and the same and the AO has recorded satisfaction while issuing notice under section 153C of the IT Act, 1961. Therefore, proper satisfaction was recorded and there is no assumption of invalid jurisdiction under section 153C as held by the ld. CIT(A). 9. Referring to the satisfaction note under section 153C of the Act, she submitted that the name of the assessee has clearly been mentioned with PAN number. Therefore, it is clear that satisfaction note has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 3241/2015 (Canyon Financial Services Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer)." 11. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of ARN. Infrastructure India Limited vs ACIT, 394 ITR 569, he submitted that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the said decision has held that the documents should not only belong to the other person but also should be incriminating in nature. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Sinhgad Technical Education Society, 378 ITR 84, he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that the satisfaction must clearly point out that the document does belong to the assessee. He accordingly submitted that in the light of the above decisions the decision of the ld. CIT(A) quashing the assessment order passed under section 153C/143(3) due to invalid assumption of jurisdiction is legally correct and, therefore, the grounds raised by the Revenue should be dismissed. 12. Referring to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Gracious Projects Pvt. Ltd., vide ITA No.1720/Del/2015, order dated 11th December, 2019, he submitted that under identical circumstances, the Tribunal has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he law. He accordingly quashed the assessment order passed under section 153C/143(3) of the IT Act. 15. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). A perusal of the satisfaction note under section 153C of the IT Act, 1961 dated 26th October, 2012 read as under:- 16. A perusal of the same shows that the name and address of the assessee with PAN numbers have been mentioned at the top of the satisfaction note and the name of the searched person is not mentioned. Further, nowhere it is mentioned that these documents are incriminating in nature. Further, there is nothing on record to suggest that any satisfaction note has been recorded in the file of the searched person. We find, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsi Foods (supra) has held that the satisfaction note itself must display the reasons or basis for the conclusion that the AO of the searched person is satisfied that the seized documents belonged to a person other than the searched person. The relevant observation of the Hon'ble High Court at para 11 of the order read as under:- "11. It is evident from the above satisfaction note that apart from saying that the documents belonged to the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
