9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 1020X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of purchasing and selling and developing of real estate. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961 was conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Department on 22.03.2011 in the Amtek Group of cases. The premises of M/s Excel Infotech Pvt. Ltd. & others, 9, Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi was also covered u/s 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which is a group company of Amtek Group. The documents belonging to the assessee, M/s Rangoli Buildtech Pvt Ltd, 1105, Akash Deep Building, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi- 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 153C was not recorded in the case of the person searched. Relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s DSL Properties (P) Ltd. vs DCIT, vide ITA No.1344/Del/2012, order dated 22nd March 2013, it was submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has held that even if the assessing officer of the person searched and the person in whose hand action is to be initiated is same, necessarily, satisfaction note for initiating action under section 153C has to be recorded in the files of the person searched for valid initiation of proceedings under section 153C and documents belonging to the other person should 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in treating a directory procedure of recording of satisfaction envisaged under section 153C of the Act as a mandatory requirement so as to affect the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO especially when it is not in dispute that documents belonging to the assessee has been found in the premises of the person searched. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in holding that jurisdiction u/s 153C was not assumed properly when the AO of the assessee searched and the AO of the assessee intended to be covered under section 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Renu Constructions (P) Limited, 399 ITR 262, the ld. counsel drew the attention of the Bench to the following observations of the Hon'ble High Court:- "9. Consequently, this Court rejects the contention of the learned counsel for the Revenue that even prior to 1st June 2015 at the stage of initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Act, it is sufficient if the seized document 'pertained to' the other person and it is not necessary to show that the seized material 'belonged to' the other person. This legal position has been explained by this Court in its recent decision dated 10th July 2017 in W.P. (C) 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 decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the AO issued notice under section 153C of the Act on the assessee on 08.11.2012 and the assessee, in response to the said notice filed the return of income declaring nil income and showing loss of ₹ 6,89,710/-. We find, on the basis of seized documents the AO made addition of ₹ 2,20,00,000/- to the total income of the assessee. In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) held that since the satisfaction note is not recorded in the file of the searched person stating that the seized documents belonged to the assessee, therefore, the jurisdiction assumed under section 153C in the case of the assessee is not in accordance with the 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, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
