TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 987X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. CIT(A) rightly held that the impugned assessment for A. Y. 2006-07 is time barred and not covered u/s. 153C of I.T. Act. Accordingly, the impugned assessment order was rightly held annulled, which does not need any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the same. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 6845/Del/2014 - - - Dated:- 4-10-2017 - SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Department : Sh. Naveen Chandra, CIT(DR) For The Assessee : Sh. Ajay Bhagwani, CA ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM: The Revenue has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 05/8/2014 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXXIII, New Delhi on the following gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /01/2013 directing it to file its return of income within 15 days of the service of the notice. This notice was duly served on the assessee vide speed post. In response to this notice u/s 153C/153A of the Act the assessee filed its return of income on 15/02/2013 declaring total income at ₹ 43,310/-. A detailed questionnaire dated 18/02/2013 was issued and was duly served upon the assessee by speed post. In response to the said notices from time to time, the A.R. of the assessee attended the office on behalf of assessee submitted the details clarifications. In BPTP and some of its group companies first search seizure operation was carried out on 15/11/2007. During the earlier assessment proceedings uls 153A of the Act, it was ver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er and filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO and reiterated the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal. 6. On the contrary, Ld. Counsel of the assessee relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that he has passed a well reasoned order, which does not need any interference. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). We find that in the instant case satisfaction note u/s 153C of the Act has been recorded on 29.1.2013 and notice u/s 153C of the Act has also been issued on same date. We further note that on similar facts, the ITAT, in the case of DSL Properties (P) Ltd. in ITA No. 11349/Del/2012 for A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being taken up for assessment under section 153C of the Income Tax Act 1961. A plain reading of the above sentence indicates that it is recorded by the Assessing Officer who is taking action under section 153C Thus, it seems that the satisfaction note is recorded by the Assessing Officer of the assessee. This inference is fortified from the fact that on the very same date, i.e. 21 June, 2010, the notice under section 153C is issued by the same person. The learned CIT-DR also stated that the satisfaction note was recorded by Shri Jeetendra Kumar, ACIT, Circle-8 who issued notice uls 153C read with section 153A. However, he tried to justify the action of the Revenue on the ground that after the order under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the same is to be placed in the file of such other person. Then, in his capacity as the Assessing Officer of such other person, he should take cognizance of such satisfaction note and thereafter issue notice under Section 153C. In this case, this exercise of recording the satisfaction during the assessment proceedings oj the person searched has not been carried out. On the other hand, the Assessing officer recorded the satisfaction in the case of such other person which does not satisfy the condition of assuming jurisdiction under section 153C Moreover, no original satisfaction note is available on record. The photocopy of the satisfaction note produced before us does not bear name of any assessee, name oj the Assessing Officer or any sea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the same date, then only conclusion that can be drawn is that the Assessing Officer of such other person has taken over the possession of seized document on 21s1 June, 2010. Accordingly, as per section 153(1), the Assessing Officer can issue the notice (or the previous year in which search is conducted (for the purpose of section 153C the document is handed over) and six AYs preceding such Assessment Year. Now, in this case, the previous year in which the document is handed over is 1st April, 2010 to 31st March. 2011. The assessment year would be AY 2011-12. Six preceding previous years and relevant assessment year would be as under:- Previous Year Assessment Year 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010 2010-11 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2009 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
