9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 2294/MUM/2021) - - - Dated:- 29-9-2022 - Shri Amit Shukla (Judicial Member) And Shri Om Prakash Kant (Accountant Member) For the Assessee : Mr. Dharmesh Shah/Dhaval Shah, AR For the Revenue : Mr. T. Shankar, CIT-DR/Mahita Nair ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These appeals by the Revenue and cross-objection by the assessee are directed against a common order dated 28.09.2021 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai [in short the Ld. CIT(A) ] for assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13. 2. The grounds and cross-objection of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 are reproduced as under: ITA No. 2293/MUM/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Rs. 61,80,01 and in law the Ld.CIT(A) is erred in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of taking capitation fee/donation in cash of Rs. 2.00 Crores for admission of students in Medical College at Kolhapur. 2.2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made on account capitation fee/donation in cash of Rs. 2.00 crores without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals before us are pertaining to the assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13. The assessments were completed u/s 153C of the Act on 27.12.2018 for both the assessment years under consideration. The Ld. CIT(A), though uphold the validity of assessment/reassessment u/s 153C of the Act, however, allowed relief on merit. Aggrieved, the Revenue and assessee are before us by way of respective grounds, in their appeal/cross-objection. 4. The Ld. DR submitted that appeals by the Assessing Officer have been filed with delay of two days, which is covered under the extended period of limitation granted by the Hon ble Supreme Court in order dated 10.04.2020 in Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 in SMW(C) No. 3 of 2020. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee did not object to condonation of delay of two days. We find that appeals filed by the Revenue are within the extended period allowed by the Hon ble Supreme Court (supra) in view of the Covid Pandemic and hence, appeals are admitted for adjudication. 5. The Ld. Counsel of the assssee has filed an application of additional ground, which is reproduced as under: 1. The Ld. AO has erred in law an d in facts is not appreciating that the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search was conducted in the aforesaid cases of the searched persons as the date of search noted in the assessment order is 27.07.2016, which was concluded on 29.07.2016. 7.2.2. However, the contention raised by the assessee before me vide the aforesaid ground is that the Id. AO should have issued notice us 153C for AY 2017-18 as well since, the date of search for computation of six previous assessment years would be the date on which the seized document was handed over to the Id. AO which is 18.09.2018 in this case. The contention of the assessee in this regard is that as per the provisions of Section 153C(1) r.w.s.153A of the Act, the Assessing Officer can initiate assessment proceedings for six proceeding years prior to the date of search by issue of notice Us 153C of the Act and in terms of the first proviso to Section 153C of the Act, for the purpose of proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act, the reference to the date of search in Section 153A of the Act shall be the date on which the Assessing Officer of the other person has received the books of account or documents or assets seized etc from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence to the date of search would have to be construed as the reference to the date of recording of satisfaction. It would follow that the six assessment years for which assessments/reassessments could be made under Section 153C of the Act would also have to be construed with reference to the date of handing over of assets/documents to the AO of the Assessee. In this case, it would be the date of the recording of satisfaction under Section 153C of the Act, i.e., 8th September, 2010. In this view, the assessments made in respect of assessment year 2003-04 and 2004-05 would be beyond the period of six assessment years as reckoned with reference to the date of recording of satisfaction by the AO of the searched person. It is contended by the Revenue that the relevant six assessment years would be the assessment years prior to the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search was conducted. If this interpretation as canvassed by the Revenue is accepted, it would mean that whereas in case of a person searched, assessments in relation to six previous years preceding the year in which the search takes place can be reopened but in case of any other person, who is not sea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
