TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . CIT (A) - 3 Gurgaon has failed to appreciate that all the issues raised were fully examined and explained both during assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings and the reasons given for dismissing the appeal are contrary to the facts of the case. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) - 3 Gurgaon had erred in not accepting the contentions of the appellant, namely that (a) The collaboration agreement dated 2nd April, 2009 seized during the search specifies at para 15 that upon signing of the agreement, the developer has paid sum of ₹ 1.00 crore to the owner (partly by cash and partly by cheque) as advance money. The receipt just supplements the agreement, wherein it has been acknowledged by the sellers in the undated receipt duly signed on stamp paper that they have received ₹ 1.00 crore (partly by cash - ₹ 50,00,000/- and party by cheque - ₹ 50,00,000/-) whereas during the financial year 2009-10, no such payments were made for the reason that the land was learnt to be under acquisition and the facts needed to be verified and, for the first time, the payment of ₹ 50,00,000/- has been made by cheque da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. Ambawatta Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. and its Director, Shri Vinod Kumar. During the search, several incriminating documents were seized by the department and on the basis of those documents, addition was made and penalty proceedings were initiated and penalty was imposed to the tune of ₹ 15,45,000/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The same was confirmed by the learned CIT(A). 3. At the outset, learned AR, Shri P.C. Yadav, Advocate submitted that in quantum proceeding, ITAT vide order dated 09.04.2019 has already granted relief to the assessee in ITA No. 2591/Del/2015 for A.Y. 2010-11 with the following observations : 7. We have gone through the record in the light of the above submissions. In so far as the dates referred to by the learned AR are concerned, absolutely there is no dispute. Search in this matter was conducted on 9.11.2011 and the seized documents belonging to the assessee were received in the Central Circle on 29.8.2013. The satisfaction note was recorded by the ld. AO on 3.10.2013. Basing on this, as contended by the learned AR, it is evident that the satisfaction note dated 3.10.2013 was recorded by the ld. AO of the assessee and certainly, it could not be by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e AO of the searched person is different from the AO of the other person, the AO will simultaneous with transmitting the documents along with his satisfaction note to the AO of the other person, make a note in the file of the searched person that he has done so. But this is for administrative convenience. The failure by the AO of the searched person, after preparing and despatching the satisfaction note and documents to the AO of the other person, to make a noting to that effect in the file of the searched person will not vitiate the proceedings under Section 153C against the other person. (iv) Where the AO of the searched person and the other person is the same, such a satisfaction note qua the other person has to be recorded by the AO of the searched person prior to the initiation of the proceedings against the other person. This is a sine qua non for triggering the proceedings against the other person under Section 153C of the Act. (v) There do not have to be two separate satisfaction notes prepared by the AO of the searched person even where he is also the AO of the other person. In such event, the AO need make only one satisfaction note. That satisfaction note is qua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation to the facts of the case. 11. In so far as the decision in the case of Instronics Ltd. (supra) is concerned, the AO of the searched person recorded a satisfaction note to the effect that seized documents belonged to the assessee and on such basis, notice u/s 153C was issued. On this set of facts, Hon ble jurisdictional High Court held that the issuance of such a notice was justified. In the case of Super Malls P. Ltd. (supra), the issue involved was not recording of the satisfaction either separately or by way of composite order by the AO of the searched person qua the other person in order to impact the validity of the notice issued u/s 153C. The issue involved therein was post amendment to Section 153C brought into force w.e.f. 1.6.2015 by the Finance Act, 2015 deleting the reference to the expression belonging to and instead substituting it with pertains or pertained to and the impact of a validity of the notice recorded u/s 153C of the Act. This decision is also not applicable to the facts of the case. Likewise, no decision is brought to our notice where the decision of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ganpati Fincap Services ltd. (supra) was di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
