9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1082X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A.O. on 10/11/2021 the Assessment Year is 2022-23 the end of the Assessment Year 2022-23 is 31/03/2022. The computation of 10 years has to run backward from the said date i.e. 31/03/2022 starting from the AY 2022-23 to 10th Assessment Year 2013-14. The captioned appeals are pertaining to Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 which are beyond 10-year outer ceiling limit prescribed in the statute, thus the Assessment framed by the A.O. for A.Y 2011-12 and 2012-13 are beyond the periods contemplated under section 153C(1) of the Act. Decided in favour of assessee. - Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia, Accountant Member And Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicial Member For the Assessee : Sh. Ganesh Das Taneja, Self And Sh. Vidit Taneja, CA For the Department : Sh. Surender Pal, CIT DR ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM Both the captioned appeals pertaining to single Assessee for the Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13, the Assessee has challenged the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 04/08/2023,wherein the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment orders passed u/s 153C read with Section 143(3) of the Act dated 30/12/2021. 2. Since both the Appeals are involved with identical issues and the Assessee has raised the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said notice was contradictory to the Assessing Officer's own observation made in the earlier notice as well as was an afterthought and was unjustified. 7. In law and in facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT has erred in confirming the addition made of Rs. 48,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') by the AO's consideration that the said payment was made in cash for purchase of property. The addition so confirmed being illegal and wrong, the same, therefore, requires to be deleted as no such cash payment was made by the appellant. 8. In law and in facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,20,000/- paid through banking channel as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The addition so confirmed being wrong and unjustified, the same, therefore, requires to be deleted as the said payment was made through explained sources and the said addition was made just to justify the initiation of proceedings U/s 153C by making the addition of more than 50 lacs. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 15.12.2021 by Pr. CIT, Bareilly. 2.2 The assessee filed his original return of income on 25.03.2012 disclosing total income of Rs. 1,99,924/-. After recording satisfaction as required u/s 153C, the notice u/s 153C of the Act was issued on 10.11.2021 requiring the assessee to file the return of income. In response, the assessee filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 18.12.2021 disclosing total income of Rs. 1,99,799/-. 2.3 After considering the reply of the assessee and on perusal of seized documents, it has been noted by the Assessing Officer that in the year under consideration, the assessee has made payment of Rs. 71,00,000/- for purchase of above said property out of which Rs. 48,00,000/- has been paid in cash. No explanation or documentary evidence has been submitted by the assessee in relation to the source of aforesaid cash payment. Further, out of the remaining amount of Rs. 23,00,000/- paid through banking channels, the assessee claimed Rs. 2,50,000/- have been received from his wife Seema Taneja, Rs. 2,00,000/- from his son Vidit Taneja, Rs. 3,35,334/- from his earlier savings/income (in cash), Rs. 2,85,000/- through loans and the remaining amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of SSS (Satyam, Sangini, Shaligram) group of Companies, the date of satisfaction note was recorded by the A.O. of the search person on 19/02/2021 and the date of satisfaction note recorded by the Jurisdictional A.O. on 10/11/2021. There was eight month gap between the date of satisfaction note recorded by the A.O. of the searched person and the date of satisfaction note recorded by the Jurisdictional A.O., Thus, it is quite evident that the seized material was received by the Jurisdictional A.O. only later in November 2021. In respect of issuing the notice u/s 153C of the Act is concerned, the counting of 10 years would commence only from the date when the materials were forwarded to the Jurisdictional A.O. i.e. on 10/11/2021 for Assessment Year 2022-23. The Explanation 1 to Section 153C of the Act contemplates the manner of computation of 10 Assessment Years for the sake of convenience Exploantion1 to Section 153C of the Act is reproduced as under: - Explanation 1. For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression relevant assessment year shall mean an assessment year preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide Annexure A) Such disastrous and harsh consequences cannot be attributed to Parliament. B 11. For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds no merit in these appeals; they are accordingly dismissed, without order on costs. 10. In the present Appeals the requisition was made and satisfaction note recorded by the Jurisdictional A.O. on 10/11/2021 the Assessment Year is 2022-23 the end of the Assessment Year 2022-23 is 31/03/2022. The computation of 10 years has to run backward from the said date i.e. 31/03/2022 starting from the Assessment Year 2022-23 to 10th Assessment Year 2013-14. The captioned appeals are pertaining to Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 which are beyond 10-year outer ceiling limit prescribed in the statute, thus the Assessment framed by the A.O. for A.Y 2011-12 and 2012-13 are beyond the periods contemplated under section 153C(1) of the Act. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we find merit in Ground No. 1 2 of the Assessee, accordingly we set aside the Assessment Orders framed by the A.O. for the A.Y 2011-12 and 2012-13. 11. In the result, Appeals of the Assessee in ITA No. 2621/Del/2023 and 2623/Del/2023 are allowed. Order pronounced in the open ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
