TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reason to believe that statutory conditions for exercise of power to order search existed – Held, yes- Whether, where entire basis of recording satisfaction in assessee’s case was a document found during search conducted in premises of another person, which neither bore assessee’s name nor indicated that it was related to assessee, warrant of authorization was issued merely on hypothecated grounds, and therefore, issuance of warrant of authorization and subsequent search and seizure proceedings were liable to be quashed –Held, yes - Decided in favour of assessee. - IT(SS)A No.137/Ahd/2013,CO No.142/Ahd/2013,IT(SS)A Nos.138 & 139/Ahd/2013,CO No.143 & 144/Ahd/2013 - - - Dated:- 29-6-2015 - Shri G. D. Agarwal and Shri Shailendra Kumar Yad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w ground which may be necessary. 3. The assessee has filed the Cross Objection against the order of ld. CIT(A) on the following grounds :- 1) In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant s case, the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in rejecting the grounds no.1 2 with regard to validity of the assessment framed u/s 153Ar.w.s. 153C 143(3) on the ground that the appellant has failed to substantiate the objections raised by her. Considering the law and facts as well as circumstances of the case, he ought to have held that the order passed by the ld.AO is ultra vires to the scope of section 153C of the Act and therefore the same requires to be quashed in the interest of natural justice being illegal void ab initio. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g with LPS-2 and LPS-3 was passed on to the office. Therefore, a notice u/s 153C of the Act was issued on 01.11.2011 and the same was served on the assessee on 02.11.2011, requesting the assessee to file the return of income within 21 days from the service of the notice. 4.1 In response, the assessee vide letter dated 08.11.2011 requested for the reasons recorded, relevant materials and details as to when such materials was received and from whom such materials are received. Therefore the assessee was provided vide letter dtd.14.11.2011 all the details such as 1) satisfaction note, 2) copies of all relevant materials and 3) Order u/s 127. Thereafter the assessee has filed return of income for AY 2007-08 on 01.12.2011 declaring total inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Hon ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in the present appeal issue originated from above matter, so the consequent proceedings u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act in the hands of present assessee ought to be quashed as challenged vide ground no.1 of the Cross Objection. The remaining grounds of the Cross Objections may not be adjudicated on merits since the search proceedings is held to be invalid. On other hand, the ld. DR on the other hand supported the order of Assessing Officer and requested to allow all alternative remedy in this case including reopening of the cases. 4.3 After considering the rival submissions and going through the record we find that Hon ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctuous and same is fact of other grounds of Cross Objection raised by assessee. Regarding submission of Departmental Representative for direction for alternate remedy in this case, we hold that in the facts and circumstances, revenue is at liberty to take action as per law after providing due opportunity of hearing to assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above. 6. In ITA No. 138/Ahd/2013 for A.Y. 2005-06 in case of husband, Revenue has filed appeal on following grounds: 1. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 6,29,000/- made u/s 69A as unexplained cash deposit despite the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be quashed in the interest of natural justice being illegal void ab initio. 2) In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant s case, the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming addition of ₹ 4,17,500/- as unexplained cheque deposit u/s 69 of the Act. He ought to have deleted the same. 3) In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant s case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act when no such interest is chargeable. He ought to have deleted the same. 4) In law and on the facts and circumstances of the appellant s case, the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in rejecting Ground No.7 of the appellant s appeal before him challenging the initiation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
