Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (5) TMI 153 - AT - Income TaxValidity of notice u/s 153C - Held that:- The satisfaction note available reveals exfacie that the same has been recorded by the AO in the capacity of the AO of the person other than the person searched, thus, the satisfaction note has been recorded by the AO of the assessee of the present cases but no satisfaction note has been recorded in the case of persons searched. This fact is also apparent from the RTI reply of DCIT, New Delhi dated 10.6.2013 also see that the basis of initiation of present proceedings u/s 153C of the Act is only satisfaction note which was recorded in the file of the person other than the person searched i.e. the assessee. In view of above factum of the present case the legal cross objections of the assessee also find support from the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of SSP Aviation Ltd. Vs. DCIT,(2012 (4) TMI 335 - DELHI HIGH COURT), as relied by the assessee, that satisfaction note is required to be made in the case of the person searched by the AO having jurisdiction over searched person which has not been recorded in the present case by the AO of person searched i.e. Shri B.K. Dhingra & Others and as per RTI reply dated 8.12.2014 (PB page 4-5) the only satisfaction has not been recorded in the file of other person viz. the assessee. In view of above, it can safely be held that no valid and required satisfaction note was recorded by the AO of the persons searched so as to fulfill the requirements of valid assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C of the Act which is a sinequanon for validly assumed jurisdiction u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee. Additions u/s 69C - unexplained purchases - disallowance of expenditure - Held that:- AO proceeded to make additions with a predetermine mind without pointing out any defects in the audited books and book results of the assessee. We reach to a logical and fortified conclusion that the AO was not justified in making impugned disallowances and additions pertains to unexplained purchases u/s 69C of the Act and disallowance of expenses in all six assessment years and addition u/s 68 of the Act in regard to share capital for A.Y. 2003-04 without any justified basis and that is too without any incriminating material and thus, we are inclined to hold that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the same. Thus inclined to hold that the AO made additions without any justify basis and incriminating material which was deleted by the CIT(A). We further hold that the CIT(A) made a vague and unsustainable directions to the AO for making additions to work out peak amount from the entries in the cash book of the assessee for the relevant assessment year and make a singular addition which is also not sustainable. The additions made by the AO in all six assessment years pertaining to unexplained purchase and in pursuant to disallowance of entire amount of expenses were not found to be sustainable by the CIT(A) and we have no reason to interfere with the plausible and correct conclusion of the CIT(A) in this regard and thus, we upheld the same. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|