9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 898X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oup of companies and their directors at their various premises on 09.09.2010. During the relevant year the appellant filed its return of income on 19.03.2012. declaring a loss of Rs.13,479/-. The appellant was issued notice dated 11.01,2013 u/s 153C read with section 153A of the income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assistant commissioner of Income Tax. Central Circle, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as Ld. A.O.) completed the assessment proceedings vide order dated 28.03.2013 passed u/s 153C/143(3)of the Act. In the said order the Id. A.O, made the additions of Rs.5,97,50,000/- to the returned income of the appellant company on the following grounds:- Addition u/s 69 towards alleged unexplained investment in property at Chandigarh Rs. 5,75,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fulfillment of mandatory jurisdictional conditions, stipulated u/s 1530 of I T. Act. 1.2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the seized incriminating material/document which is edifice of impugned assessment order passed by Ld. AO and Ld. CITA by no standard of reasoning can be said to be "belonging to Appellant Co." within the meaning of section 153C of I.T. Act". 3. The ld. DR did not object for admission of aforementioned additional grounds as it is purely a question of law and requires no verification of any facts. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") was carried out on 09.09 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mp) on behalf of sellers and Sh. Bhupender Singh Bajwa on behalf of purchasers. It also bears signature of two witnesses." 6. A further receipt is exhibited at page 4 of the assessment order which bears no signature of the purchaser and the same is as under: 7. Based on the afore-stated seized documents, the Assessing Officer was convinced that actual sale consideration paid for the impugned property being House No. 11, Sector 9, Chandigarh was Rs. 11.25 crores instead of Rs. 5.5 crores claimed by the assessee and by the sellers and treated the difference of Rs. 5.75 crores as expenses out of undisclosed sources u/s 69 of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee. 8. The Assessing Officer was also of the opinion that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... completed u/s 153C of the Act must belong to other persons. 12. The ld. counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the receipt cum agreement to sell dated 28.03.2009 and pointed out that such receipt cum agreement neither bears the name of the appellant company not is mentioned therein that the same was executed by Shri Bhupinder Singh Bajwa in the capacity of Director of the appellant company. 13. The ld. counsel for the assessee once again stated that the receipt cum agreement to sell is dated 28.03.2009 whereas the appellant company came into existence on 08.04.2009 as per the Certificate of Incorporation. Therefore, it cannot be a party to the said receipt cum agreement dated 28.03.2009. 14. Strong reliance was placed on the dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der is in continuation of receipt cum agreement to sell dated 28.03.2009 as mentioned in the receipt itself that "all other terms and conditions as per agreement to sell dated 28.03.2009 will remain same". 18. This receipt also does not bear the name of the assessee. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the seized document referred to by the Assessing Officer in his assessment order and which are made basis for the impugned addition do not belong to the assessee. It would be pertinent to refer to the observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Ankit Gupta [supra]. The relevant observations /findings read as under: "7. Learned counsel for the Respondents-Assessees, on the other hand, pointed out that this Court has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iation 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 ir. W.P. (C) No. 3241/2015 (Canyon Financial Services Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer). 19. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Dreamcit Buildwell Pvt. Ltd 417 ITR 617. The relevant findings read as under: "In the present case the search took place on 5th January 2009. Notice to the Assessee was issued under Section 153 C on 19th November 2010. This was long prior to 1st June, 2015 and, therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
