9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 153C. What is relevant is the date of receipt of seized assets, documents by the AO of the non-searched person i.e. assessee in the instant case. When the limitation is counted from the date of requisition of books, documents by the AO falling in A.Y. 2018-19, the assessment, the A.Y. 2011-12 in question is clearly found to be outside the period of limitation assigned for invocation of section 153C of the Act. Similar view has been taken in Marconi Infratech [ 2024 (7) TMI 129 - ITAT DELHI] in identical set of facts. We thus find potency in the plea of the assessee for holding the assessment for A.Y. 2011-12 in question u/s 153 to be barred by limitation. The assessment order passed under Section 153C of the Act being barred by limitation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst the first appellate order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Gurgaon dated 22.12.2023 arising from the assessment order dated 09.07.2019 passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as AO ) under Section 153A(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. When the matter was called for hearing the learned Counsel for the assessee adverted to the cross objections filed by the assessee in the Revenue appeal and contended that ground raised in the cross objections are legal in nature touching the jurisdictional aspects and therefore, calls for primacy in adjudication. 3. To supporting the cross objections, the learned Counsel submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od was not in force. The learned Counsel referred to several decisions rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench touching upon the aspects of limitation available to the Revenue in the similar facts situation. The decision in the case of M/s. Marconi Infratech (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA Nos. 3126 to 3132/Del/2023 order dated 21.06.2024 was referred to support the case of assessee towards exclusion on A.Y. 2011-12 from the ambit of limitation. 5. The learned Counsel thereafter pointed out that without prejudice to the plea that A.Y. 2011-12 is grossly time barred, the Satisfaction Note recorded by the AO itself does not pass a test of law being vague and non-descript. The satisfaction note does not identify the undisclosed income qua the different as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 9. The satisfaction note being germane to the subject matter of the controversy is reproduced hereunder: Reasons/Satisfaction note for taking up the case of M/s. Manglam Multiplex Pvt. Ltd., under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Name and address of the Assessee M/s. Manglam Multiplux Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Year 2011-12 to 2017-18 PAN AAECM 0481 G Status Company By virtue of the authorization of the Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Chandigarh, a Search Seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act) was carried out on 21.07.2016 at the residential/business premises of the persons associated with the M/s MSM Gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 153C. What is relevant is the date of receipt of seized assets, documents by the AO of the non-searched person i.e. assessee in the instant case. When the limitation is counted from the date of requisition of books, documents by the AO falling in A.Y. 2018-19, the assessment, the A.Y. 2011-12 in question is clearly found to be outside the period of limitation assigned for invocation of section 153C of the Act. Similar view has been taken by the Co-ordinate Bench in Marconi Infratech (supra) in identical set of facts. We thus find potency in the plea of the assessee for holding the assessment for A.Y. 2011-12 in question under Section 153C of the Act to be barred by limitation. The assessment order passed under Section 153C of the Act b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without reference to seized material pertaining to A.Y. 2011-12, is illusory and unsustainable in law. A reference was made to the judgment rendered in the case of Dev Technofab Ltd. vs. DCIT (2024) 166 Taxmann.com 514 (Del). 13. It is evident from the satisfaction note that the alleged undisclosed income is not identifiable with any assessment year. In the absence of any particular of incriminating material available, such obscure and vague satisfaction note does not entitle the AO to assume jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Act. Neither the income assessed under Section 153C of the Act appears to relate to any incriminating material nor the so called incriminating material has been shown to be attributable to A.Y. 2011-12. 14 Hence, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
