9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 840X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g related activities. The A.O. noted that a search seizure operation under section 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was conducted on 26.09.2014 on the premises of the assessee comprising KDP/MGI group of cases. Subsequently, notice under section 153C of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued on 16.09.2016 after recording satisfaction note. In response to the aforesaid notice, assessee electronically filed its return of income on 11.10.2016 declaring total income at Rs.318/-. Thereafter, the case was taken-up for scrutiny and consequently, assessment was framed under section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 vide order dated 30.12.2016 and total income of the assessee company was determined at Rs.7,85,00,320/-, inter alia, by making addition of Rs.7, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upra) would not be applicable to the facts of the present case for the reason that the A.O. of the searched person and the assessee are the same and, therefore, the period of six assessment years should be considered from the date of search. 5. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee, on the other hand, supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 6. We have heard the Learned Representatives of both the parties and perused the material on record. The Revenue in the present appeal is challenging the action of Ld. CIT(A) in annulling the assessment framed by A.O. under section 153C of the I.T. Act, 1961. We find that Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee, the remand report from the A.O. and assessee's reply to the remand repor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y observing that the A.O. of the searched person who was to handover the documents and the A.O. of the assessee were one and same person was not relevant in terms of Section 153C of the I.T. Act, 1961 and that Ld. CIT(A) had erred in proceeding on the basis that period of 06 years was to be reckoned from the end of the financial year preceding the financial year in which the search was conducted. 6.3. Before us, the Revenue has not placed on record any contrary binding decision in its support nor has placed any material to demonstrate that the aforesaid decision rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of RRJ Securities Ltd., (supra) has been set aside, overruled or stayed by any higher judicial forum. In view of the aforesaid fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
