9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 relating to the A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2014-2015. The assessee has filed the cross objections in support of the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Since common issues are involved in all these appeals, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Both the parties are agreed that the decision taken in ITA.No.3633/Del./2019 for the A.Y. 2009-10 shall be applicable to other appeals. Therefore, we take up the appeal for the A.Y. 2009-10. ITA.No.3633/Del./2019 - A.Y. 2009-10 : 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation was carried out under section 132(1) of the Act in M/s. Apple Group of Companies (AGC) on 11.11.2014, wherein certain incriminating document ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in appeal before the Tribunal and has raised the following grounds : 1. "Whether on facts is and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law while holding that there was no incriminating material for the issuance of notice u/s 153C without appreciating that while recording the satisfaction for issue of notice 153C the test for 'incriminating material' has to be only in nature of prima facie belief based on some material having live nexus and not in the nature of absolute evidence established after detailed investigation of facts or law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the submission made by the Appellant ignoring the Department findings during the search u/s 132(1) of the Act and information contained in the seized ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned Counsel for the Assessee also filed written synopsis before us contending, inter alia, that the notice issued under section 153C is without jurisdiction and barred by limitation as the A.O. of the searched person has recorded satisfaction on 02.12.2016 falls in previous year 2016-17 relevant to A.Y. 2017-18. Therefore, the immediately preceding six assessment years are 2011-12 to A.Y. 2016-17. Thus, the A.Y. 2009-10 to A.Y. 2010-11 are clearly out of block of six years and in support of his contention he relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., RRJ Securities Ltd., [2015] 62 taxmann.com 391 (Del.) and subsequent decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of ARN Infrastructure India Ltd., vs., AC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r to the issue of notice under section 153C of the I.T. Act, 1961. In order to satisfy the pre-conditions, the A.O. before issuance of notice under section 153C has to satisfy (i) the Existence of undisclosed/unexplained asset or incriminating seized documents against the assessee, as a result of search (ii) recording of satisfaction by the A.O. of the person searched that the undisclosed assets or incriminating document found as a result of search should "belongs to" the assessee, for relevant assessment year and (iii) proper satisfaction is to be recorded by the AO for the relevant assessment year for issuance of notice under section 153C of the I.T. Act, 1961. From the above, it is clear that all the above three conditions are to be sati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pleted assessments can be interfered with by the A.O. while making the assessment under section 153A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment" 6.1. Since the Ld. CIT(A) has discussed the matter in issue in detail in his order and finally concluded that notice under section 153C issued by the A.O. need to be treated as ab-initio, invalid and legally not sustainable and, therefore, the assessment framed on the basis of legally unsustainable notice quashed and annulled assessment made by the A.O. We find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nverified unsecured loan and unverified share premium/capital respectively. Aggrieved by the order of the A.O. the assessee carried in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide common order dated 07.01.2019 quashed the assessment made by the A.O. by following the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT-3, Pune Vs Sinhgad Technical Education Society (supra). Since, we have dismissed the Revenue's appeal for the A.Y. 2009-10 hereinabove and identical facts and grounds are involved in the remaining appeals for the A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2014-15 we dismiss the appeals of the Revenue for the A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2014-15. 9. In the result, ITA.Nos.3634, 3635, 3636, 3637 & 3638/Del./2019 of the Revenue are dismissed. 10. Since we have dismissed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
