| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 4460 (Del-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 153C
Since no satisfaction had been recorded in the file of searched person that seized documents belonged to other party, i.e., assessee and do not belong to the searched person, therefore, jurisdiction assumed under section 153C in case of assessee was not in accordance with law.
|
Search and seizure - Assessment under section 153C - Non-recording of satisfaction in case of searched party -
AO, pursuant to documents found during search in case of M/s. 'E', initiated proceedings under section 153C in assessee's case and made addition to total income of assessee. Assessee's case was that jurisdiction under section 153C was not assumed properly. Held: A perusal of satisfaction note recorded under section 153C showed that name and address of assessee with PAN had been mentioned at the top of satisfaction note and name of searched person was not mentioned. Also, nowhere it was mentioned that documents found were incriminating in nature. Further, there was nothing on record to suggest that any satisfaction note had been recorded in the file of searched person. Since, no satisfaction had been recorded in the file of searched person that seized documents belonged to other party, i.e., assessee and do not belong to the searched person, therefore, jurisdiction assumed under section 153C in case of assessee was not in accordance with law.
Supported by:Pr. CIT v. N.S. Software (Firm) (2018) 403 ITR 259 (Del-HC) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 2127 (Del-HC), Canyon Financial Services Ltd. v. ITO (2017) 399 ITR 202 (Del-Trib) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 1901 (Del-HC) Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT & Anr. (2014) 370 ITR 295 (Del) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 3925 (Del-HC)
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2007-08
IN THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH
R.K. PANDA, A.M. & KULDIP SINGH, J.M.
ACIT v. Rangoli Buildtech (P) Ltd.
ITA No. 5015/Del/2014
22 October, 2020
Revenue dismissed.
Assessee by: Rakesh Gupta, Advocate & Somil Agarwal, CA
Revenue by: Sunit Singh, CIT-DR
R.K. Panda, A.M.
This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the Order, dated 26-3-2014 of the Commissioner (Appeals)-33 New Delhi, relating to assessment year 2007-08.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of purchasing and selling and developing of real estate. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Department on 22-3-2011 in the Amtek Group of cases. The premises of M/s. Excel Infotech Pvt. Ltd. & others, 9, Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi was also covered under section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is a group company of Amtek Group. The documents belonging to the assessee, M/s. Rangoli Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., 1105, Akash Deep Building, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 were also found and seized from the premises of M/s. Excel Infotech Pvt. Ltd. & Others, 9, Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi in whose name search warrant of authorization was issued. The assessee's case was proposed for centralization by the Investigation Wing for coordinated investigation and assessment under section 153C and subsequently it was centralized with Central Circle-14, New Delhi vide Order F.No. CIT(C) Centr/2012-13/239, dated 25-4-2012. Accordingly notice under section 153C of the Income Tax Act was issued to the assessee on 8-11-2012. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed return of income on 5-2-2013 declaring a loss of Rs. 6,89,710.
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|