9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 739X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en recorded, cannot lead us to reach to this conclusion, especially when the Revenue has not laid any foundation to support their contention. In the factual background as explained above, the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C cannot be sustained in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Kabul Chawla [ 2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT] . - ITA 391/2019 WITH ITA 380/2019 - - - Dated:- 14-12-2020 - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN AND HON BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA Appellant Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Pratyash Gupta, Advocate. Respondent Through: Mr. Ajit Kumar Jha, Advocate. ORDER (ORAL) SANJEEV NARULA, J. CM APPL. 17945/2019 (exemption) in ITA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act. 7. On 21.03.2007, a search and seizure operation was conducted, under Section 132 of the Act in respect of Surya Vinayak Group of cases. The Assessing Officer noticed that, the aforesaid group is headed by Sh. Sanjay Jain and his brother Sh. Rajiv Jain. The main allegation against this group was that they had taken a large number of accommodation entries in various group companies by paying cash to various entry operators. Thus, on 29.09.2008, after recording a satisfaction note, notice under Section 153C of the Act was issued to the assessee requiring it to file the ROI in the prescribed form. In response thereto, the assessee submitted that the previous returns declared be deemed as the ROI in response to notice under Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gned order of the ITAT. 10. Mr. Abhishek Maratha, learned senior standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue contends that the ITAT has failed to take note that in the instant cases, incriminating documents belonging to the assessee were found and seized during the course of search under Section 132 of the Act. Thus, after recording of the satisfaction note, notice under Section 153C was issued by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, this does not happen to be a case wherein no documents were found during search operation. To support his submissions, Mr. Maratha refers to paragraph 1.3 of the AO. The same is reproduced as follows: 1.3 After recording satisfaction note, a notice u/s 153C was issued on 29.09.2008 to the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner of Income Tax- III, Pune vs. Sinhgad Technical Educational Society reported in (2017) 84 taxmann.com 290 (SC) as well as the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court passed in the case Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kabul Chawla reported (2016) 380 ITR 573 (Del.) and in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) -2 vs. Index Securities (P) Ltd. 11. Respectfully following the precedents as aforesaid, as aforesaid, we quash the assessment made u/s.153(C)/143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and decide the legal issue in favour of the Assessee and accordingly, allow the Cross Objection filed by the assessee. 12. Following the consistent view taken in the assessment year 2001-02 in the Assessee s Cross objection, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
