9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the warrants at (Global 3rd Floor) 106-A, Tower-1, DLF Aralias, DLF Golflinks, Gurugram, which is not the registered office of the assessee. The other warrant which does not contain name of the assessee but contains name of M/s M3M India Holdings Private Limited and registered office of the assessee i.e. C-13, Sushant Lok, Phase-1, Gurgaon. However, the name of the partners of the firm are mentioned. We find ourselves in agreement with learned counsel for the Revenue that mentioning M/s M3M India Holdings Private Limited for the addressee C13, Sushant Lok, Phase-1, Gurgaon would not be a reason to hold that no search operation was conducted at the premises of the assessee because even if the name of other private limited company is mentioned in the warrant, the fact remains that the registered address of the respondent firm was searched and the names of their partners were mentioned. The findings of the ITAT that there was no search conducted at the premises of the respondent-firm is, therefore, found to be erroneous and perverse. Further contention of the appellant with regard to assertion of incriminating material being found in the premises of the respondent, however, is wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals)-3, Gurugram, who vide his order dated 31.03.2022 dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the assessee filed the appeal before the ITAT, which was allowed vide order dated 23.09.2022. Now the Revenue is in appeal before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the ITAT was incorrect in holding that no search was conducted in the premises of the assessee, whereas warrants of authorization were executed in the name of the assessee. It was incorrect in holding that no additions can be made under Section 153A of the Act as there was no incriminating material found during search. The interpretation made under Section 153A of the Act by the ITAT that proceedings can be initiated only with regard to incriminating material found during search at the premises of the assessee is incorrect. 4. Learned counsel for the Revenue fairly submitted that the ITAT has relied on CIT vs Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573 (Delhi) and Pr. CIT vs Meeta Gutgutia 395 ITR 526, although the same were subject matter of challenge before the Supreme Court at that relevant time. 5. It was further submitted that the ITAT was incorrect in holding that additions could not have been made in the hands of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also submitted that warrants, which were issued to search 106A, Tower-1, DLF Aralias, Golf Link, Gurugram, mentioned the name of the respondent, therefore, there was sufficient incriminating material available for initiating proceedings. There is perversity in the order passed by the ITAT. 10. We have carefully considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and perused the referred law. 11. Although, prima facie, this Court is of the firm view that the factual aspects would not be examined in appeal but with the purpose to satisfy ourselves, we asked the Department to place before us the warrants of authorization issued under Section 132 of the Act. 12. The original file containing satisfaction note for issue of consequential warrant of authorization and the satisfaction note prepared after search was also perused. It is noticed that there were two warrants of authorization issued under Section 132 of the Act by the Principal Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Chandigarh. One is for partners Bansant Bansal, Roop Kumar Bansal, Pankaj Bansal, Smt. Anita Bansal, Smt. Abha Bansal and M/s M3M India Holdings Private Limited dated 16.07.2016 at the address C-13, Sushant Lok, Phase- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d from the premises of the respondent-assessee, we are unable to sustain the proceedings initiated under Section 153-A of the Act. 15. Delhi High Court in Kabul Chawla s case (supra) has held as under:- Summary of the legal position On a conspectus of section 153A (1) of the Act, read with the provisos 37 thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: (i) Once a search takes place under section 132 of the Act, notice under section 153A (1) will have to be mandatorily issued to the person searched requiring him to file returns for six assessment years immediately preceding the previous year relevant to the assessment year in which the search takes place. (ii) Assessments and reassessments pending on the date of the search shall abate. The total income for such assessment years will have to be computed by the Assessing Officers as a fresh exercise. (iii) The Assessing Officer will exercise normal assessment powers in respect of the six years previous to the relevant assessment year in which the search takes place. The Assessing Officer has the power to assess and reassess the total income of the aforementio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the proceedings, if at all which could have been initiated on the basis of material collected while conducting search of some other assessee and found to be relevant for the purpose, then the course which could have been adopted was only under Section 153-C of the Act. In Misty Meadows Private Limited vs Union of India and others 2024 (465) ITR 630, after considering the provisions of Section 153-A and 153-C of the Act, we have held that both operate in different fields. Relevant paras of Misty Meadows Private Limited (supra) are extracted below:- Thus, we find that a particular procedure has been prescribed, as above. Following the salutary principles of law as laid down in Nazir Ahmad and followed in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh and Singhara Singh's cases (supra). we find that the respondents were obliged to compulsorily follow the procedure for reassessment of the petitioner company in the manner as prescribed under Section 153C(1) alone and in no other manner. However, we find that the respondents have invoked and initiated proceedings under Section 153A of the Act, although neither there is any search initiated under Section 132 of the Act as against the petitioner nor it c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
