TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any interference at the end of this Tribunal. We accordingly while upholding the same, find the grounds of appeal as devoid of merits. - Decided against revenue. - I.T.A. No. 2017/Del/2014 - - - Dated:- 27-4-2018 - Shri R. S. Syal, Vice President And Shri K. Narsimha Chary, Judicial Member Appellant by : Miss Rachna Singh, CIT DR Respondent by : S/Shri Gautam Jain, Piyush Kumar Kamal and Lalit Mohan ORDER PER NARASIMHA K. CHARY, JM This is an appeal by the Revenue against the orders dated 31.01.2014 in Appeal No. 1218/2011-12 passed by the Ld. that Commissioner of income tax (Appeals)-XXXI, New Delhi (for short hereinafter referred to as Ld. CITA ). 2. Brief facts of the case are that in the search action that took place on 7.1.2010 in M/s Gee Ispat group of companies, three documents enumerated at exhibit A1, A8 and A11 allegedly pertaining to the assessee were recovered from such premises and basing on those documents, learned AO recorded the following reason for Asstt. Years 2004-05 to 2009-10 initiated proceedings u/s 153C of the Act: A search and seizure operation, was carried on Gee Ispat Group of cases on 7th January, 2010. In the course o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of Section 153C with reference to satisfaction seems to be only prima facie satisfaction and not formal conclusive satisfaction that the document etc. found in the course of search belongs to the person other than one searched. Placing reliance on the decision reported in the case of Manish Maheshwari vs ACIT, 289 ITR 341 (SC), she submitted that though such decision was rendered in context of Section 158BD it is equally applicable to Section 153C also. 5. Learned DR s main reliance is on the decision reported in the case of SSP Aviation Ltd. vs DCIT (2012) 346 ITR 177 (Del) wherein it was held that in view of the provisions of Section 153C, satisfaction that is required to be reached by the AO having jurisdiction over the searched person is that the document etc. seized during search belong to a person other than searched person. Basing on the decision reported in Dr. K.M. Mehaboob vs DCIT (2012) 211 Taxman 52 (Ker), she submitted that for transferring file u/s 153C, there is no need to examine whether evidence or material seized in search action represents or proves undisclosed income of another persons. Nextly, she submitted that the words belong to not necessarily con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... establishes that none of these documents can be said to be belonging to the assessee. Reliance is placed on the instructions dated 31.3.2014 in F.No.299/128/2013/DIR(Inv.III)/547 issued by the CBDT. Lastly, he submitted that there is nothing incriminatory that is recovered in this matter, as such, exercise of jurisdiction by the learned AO is bad in law. Reliance is placed on the decision reported in CIT vs RRJ Securities Ltd., 380 ITR 612 (Del) and CIT vs Singhad Technical Education Society, 120 DTR 79. 8. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions on either side. Exhibit A1 is containing page no.28. It contains the print out of list of names giving the amount in the number of shares allotted wherein the name of the assessee company shows the number of shares allotted as 50,000 and the amount at ₹ 5 lacs. Exhibit A8 is the index sheet super-scribed as share capital and showing the name of the assessee at S.No.6 against which the folio numbers mentioned are 7,8. Exhibit A11 contains two leaves numbered as page 29 and 30. These two are the copies of confirmation of accounts of Assessee Company as existed in the books of accounts of M/s Gee Ispat P. Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant company appears. Again, ₹ 5 lakhs has been mentioned as amount invested in the shares and 50,000/- has been mentioned as number of shares allotted. Once again there is no evidence to show that this particular document belonged to the appellant. Further, there is no dispute that the appellant had invested in the share capital of M/s Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd. as noted in the satisfaction of note of the AO. In any case there are no reasons to hold that this document belonged to the appellant. 3.11 From the above discussion it is noted that the documents relied upon by the AO did not belong to the appellant at all. Further, there is no indication also that any of the contents of the documents related to any undisclosed income of the appellant company. These documents only showed that the appellant company had invested in the share capital to m/s Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd. which is not in dispute.' Considering, these factors it has to be held that there are no documents belonging to the assessee which has been seized from the premises of M/s Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, to this extent, the submissions of the AR are liable to be accepted. 10. On this aspect, the obse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s/assets in question have no bearing on the income of the Assessee for the relevant assessment years. 11. Further in the case of Singhad Technical Education Society (Civil Appeal No.11080 of 2017) the Hon ble Apex Court held that,- 18) In this behalf, it was noted by the ITAT that as per the provisions of Section 153C of the Act, incriminating material which was seized had to pertain to the Assessment Years in question and it is an undisputed fact that the documents which were seized did not establish any co-relation, document-wise, with these four Assessment Years. Since this requirement under Section 153C of the Act is essential for assessment under that provision, it becomes a jurisdictional fact. We find this reasoning to be logical and valid, having regard to the provisions of Section 153C of the Act. Para 9 of the order of the ITAT reveals that the ITAT had scanned through the Satisfaction Note and the material which was disclosed therein was culled out and it showed that the same belongs to Assessment Year 2004-05 or thereafter. After taking note of the material in para 9 of the order, the position that emerges therefrom is discussed in para 10. It was specifically ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
