2023 (11) TMI 809

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., [ 2023 (4) TMI 1056 - SUPREME COURT] . Question of law as framed have to be answered against the appellant/revenue and in favour of the respondents/assessee.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA Present : For the Appellant : Mr Sanjeev Menon, Standing Counsel. For the Respondent : Mr Ved Kumar Jain, Mr Nischay Kantoor, Ms Soniya Dodeja and Mr Aminesh Tripathi, Advs. RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL): 1. The above-captioned appeals concern three (3) assessees. The Assessment Year (AY) in issue in all six appeals is AY 2009-10. The order impugned in the above-captioned appeals preferred .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t return any ruling on merits and in that sense left the order of the CIT(A) untouched. However, on the two legal issues which arose before the Tribunal, the decision taken was in favour of the assessees. The legal issues which the Tribunal dealt with were the following: 6.1 First, what would be the impact of the Assessing Officer (AO) of the searched person not recording his satisfaction? 6.2 Second, in the absence of incriminating material, whether the proceedings were valid? 7. The Tribunal with respect to the first issue came to the following conclusion: "15. xxx xxx xxx On perusal of the aforesaid satisfaction note, it is crystal clear that the said satisfaction was recorded by the AO in the proceedings relating to the asses .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ngwith the· regular return of income. Therefore, those documents by no stretch of the imagination can be said to be incriminating as those were made out of the regular books of accounts of the assessee, and the return of income was filed on the basis of those documents only." [Emphasis is ours.] 9. Mr Ved Jain, counsel who appears on behalf of the respondents/assessees, fairly concedes that insofar as the first aspect is concerned, the Tribunal's decision cannot be sustained in view of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Super Malls Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 8, New Delhi, (2020) 4 SCC 581. However, Mr Sanjeev Menon, learned standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, cannot .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X