TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not in the file of the person searched. See SSP Aviation Ltd. vs. DCIT [2012 (4) TMI 335 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and CIT vs. Meghna Organics (2011 (4) TMI 1329 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) - Decided against revenue - I.T.As. No.990 & 991/DEL/2015 - - - Dated:- 31-1-2018 - Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member Shri O. P. Kant, Accountant Member Appellant by: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr.D.R. Respondent by: None ORDER PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the impugned orders dated 11/11/2014, passed by the ld. CIT (Appeals)-XXXIII, New Delhi for the Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2006-07. The common grounds raised by the Revenue in both the appeals reads as under: 1. On the facts an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Act, 1961 was conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Department on 22.03.2011 in the Amtek Group of cases. The premises of M/s Amtek Auto Ltd. 9, Allied House LSC, Madangir, New Delhi also covered u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is a group company of Amtek Group. The documents belonging to the assessee, M/s. Yash Machines Pvt. Ltd. Lotus Tower Basement, Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi - 110065. were also found and seized from the premises of M/s Amtek Auto Ltd. 9, Allied House LSC, Madangir, New Delhi in whose name search warrant of authorization was issued. The case was centralized with Central Circle-14, New Delhi vide order F.No CTT- VI/Centralisation/2012-13/1280 dated 13.09.2012. Accordingly, notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Asst. Years 2005-06 to 2010-11 Date 18.09.2012 Satisfaction Note U/s 153C of the Income Tax Act. 1961 The case of M/s. Yash Machines Ltd. was centralized u/s 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with the Assessing Officer, Central I.T.A. No.990 991/DEL/2015 4 Circle-14, New Delhi. Vide order F.No CTTVI/ Centralization/2012-13/1280 dated 13.09.2012 passed by CIT-V1, New Delhi. Search u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961 was carried out at the premises of M/s Amtek Auto Ltd. 9 Allied House LSC Madangir, New Delhi on 22.03.2011. During the course of search proceeding in M/s. Amtek Group of cases, certain documents belonging to M/s Yash Machines Ltd. were found and seized from the ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orded in the case of the person who was searched u/s.132(1), that is, in whose case assessment was to be framed u/s.153A. It was submitted that, since jurisdiction has not been acquired in accordance with law, that is, prescribed u/s.153C, therefore, the entire proceedings is bad in law. In support, reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Maheshwari vs. ACIT Another (2007) 289 ITR 341 (SC) ; Hon'ble Gujarat High Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. Meghna Organics Ltd. in Tax Appeal No. 2077 of 2009 and other decisions of ITAT Tribunal Bench. Apart from that, reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of SSP Aviation Ltd. vs. Dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and belongs to person other than searched. Then the copy of such satisfaction should be placed in the file of such other person and the relevant documents should be kept in the file of such other person, then proceedings u/s 153C should be initiated in the case of such other person. The findings of the hon ble ITAT is reproduced as under:- We are unable to agree with the view of the learned AR. If the Assessing Officer is assessing the person searched as well as other person whose assets, books of accounts or documents were found at the time of search, then also, first while making the assessement in the case of the person searched, he has to record the satisfaction that the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is available on record. The photocopy of the satisfaction note produced before us does not bear name of any assessee, name of the Assessing Officer or any seal of the Assessing 11 ITA-1344/Del/2012 officer. Therefore, the shove satisfaction note cannot be said to be a valid satisfaction note within the meaning of section 153C. I have already concluded that the satisfaction note is not recorded in the file of the lessee searched u/s 132 and documents claimed to be owned by the appellant was transferred the file of the appellant. Therefore, the jurisdiction assumed u/s 153C in the case of the appellant is not in accordance with the findings of hon ble ITAT in the case of DSL properties (P) Ltd. cited supra. Therefore, it is concluded t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
