9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 809X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the above-captioned appeals preferred by the appellant/revenue is the order dated 24.03.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, "Tribunal"]. This order is assailed in the six appeals filed by the appellant/revenue. 2. Via the impugned order, the Tribunal has thus disposed of the cross-appeals filed by the appellant/revenue and the respondents/assessees. 3. The record shows that on 13.08.2018, the above-captioned appeals were admitted and a common question of law was framed which reads as follows: "Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in allowing the appeal preferred by the respondent/assessee as initiation of proceedings under 153 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was bad and contrary to law?" 4. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO in the proceedings relating to the assessee i.e. M/s Victory Dwellings Pvt. Ltd. and not in the case of Sh. Pramod Goel in whose case search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was undertaken on 14.09.2010. Therefore, the jurisdiction assumed by the AO without recording the satisfaction in the case of the searched person was not valid. xxx xxx xxx 17. From the plain reading of the aforesaid Circular No. 24/2015 dated even if the AO of the searched person, and of the other person is one and the same then he is required to record his satisfaction in the case of searched person. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the AO of the searched person has not recorded any satisfaction rather the satisfaction is recorded b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... half of the appellant/revenue, cannot but accept the fact that as far as the decision of the Tribunal on the second issue is concerned, i.e., because no incriminating material was found, the proceedings taken out against the assessees under Section 153C of the Act were not valid in the eyes of law, was the correct view. 9.1 We may note that the Tribunal in this behalf relied upon the judgment rendered by the coordinate bench of this court in PCIT v. Kabul Chawla, [2016] 380 ITR 573 (Delhi). The said judgment has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., [2023] 454 ITR 212 (SC). 10. Thus, having regard to the aforesaid position, according to us, the question of law as frame ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
