9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be applicable as it is prospective. It is not the case that Hon ble High Court has reversed the above decision of ITAT, Hence, following the precedence, we reject the pleadings and submission of the ld. CIT DR for the Revenue. In the present cases, since the date of search was 07.04.2016 the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2017 would not be applicable. Accordingly, respectfully following the precedent as above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT (A). Hence we uphold the same. Appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. - ITA No. 1816/Del./2021 ITA No. 1817/Del./2021 - - - Dated:- 23-12-2022 - SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA , JUDICIAL MEMBER ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MADHUR A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r failed to appreciate that the original assessment have already been completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax vide order dated 27/02/2015 by Income Tax officer, Ward- 11 (2), New Delhi and in the' original assessment forfeiture of shares have been held to be genuine. 5 That on the facts and circumstances of the ease and in law the learned Assessing officer failed to appreciate the fact that amount received on account of forfeiture of share is capital receipt and is not taxable and all the documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of forfeiture of shares have been submitted and during the course of assessment proceeding. 6 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the statement relied upon in the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 and seized material was handed over to the AO of M/s. H.N. Properties Pvt. Ltd. u/s 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). In the said order, AO made addition of Rs.2,75,18,088 for this assessment year. 5. Against this order, assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT (A). Assessee challenged the jurisdiction assumed by the AO u/s 153C of the Act. The contention of the assessee was that these two assessment years i.e. 2012-13 2013-14 are beyond six years from the date of recording of satisfaction and hence cannot be subject to 153C proceedings. In this regard, ld. CIT (A) referred to assessee s reliance on the decision of ITAT, Delhi in the case of Karina Airlines International Ltd. vs. ACIT, Circle 5, Delhi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he AO of searched person, satisfaction was recorded on 15.05.2019 on part of the AO of M/s H N Properties Private Limited (the assessee). Thereafter, notice u/s 153C of the Act was issued manually on 15.05.2019 and sent by post and duly served on assessee. 4.2.5 The appellant has claimed that the assessment in this case is u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act and as such the date of recording of satisfaction is construed as date of search and as such the Assessing Officer can issue the notice u/s 153C for six assessment year's preceding the year in which satisfaction have been recorded. The satisfaction was recorded on 15/05/2019 i.e. in the assessment year AY 2020-2021 and as such six preceding previous years covered under u/s 153C of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ught by the Finance Act, 2017 would not be applicable. Hence, in view of judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. RRJ Securities Ltd. [2016] 380 ITR 612 (Delhi), six years covered u/s 153C of Income Tax Act would be A Y 2014-15 to A Y 2019-20 since the date of recording of satisfaction was 15.05.2019. Hence, proceedings u/s 153C of Income Tax Act for A Y 2012-13 are quashed and additions of Rs.2,75,18,0881- and Rs.9,5841- are hereby deleted. Ground No.2 of the appeal is allowed. 6. Similar order was passed in AY 2013-14 by the ld. CIT (A). 7. Against these orders, Revenue has filed appeals before us. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. 8. Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
