TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 701X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sister Shah-E-Naaz Judge. The ratio of the decision would naturally apply mutatis mutandis in the case of other holder of the locker namely, the assessee herein where the search warrant on such locker was found to be in violation of Section 132(1) of the Act. The search warrant and consequential assessment u/s.153A in the case of other joint holder thus cannot be seen differently. Hence, on the basis of judgment rendered in the case of Shah E Naaz Judge vs. Additional Director of Income Tax (Inv)-Unit-VI, [ 2018 (12) TMI 292 - DELHI HIGH COURT] we find merit in the Ground no.1 of the Cross Objection. Consequently, we hold that the search authorization warrant issued u/s.132 of the Act and consequential assessment framed u/s 153A of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s Orient Links Co. in Account No.193232-006-000-840) made by the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosed income. 3. The grounds in the Cross Objection by the assessee read as under: 1(i) That the search authorisation warrant and consequential search conducted u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is without any basis, information or material and as such the issue of search warrant was illegal and unjustified. (ii) That in respect of very same search case of the sister of the Appellant; the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has quashed the search warrant as it was issued merely on the basis of reasons to suspect and not in conformity with the provisions of section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (iii) That in absence of any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as added to the total income of the assessee on account of certain foreign bank transactions carried out by the assessee. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) analyzed the factual matrix and deleted the impugned addition in toto on merits. 6. Aggrieved by the relief granted by the CIT(A) on merits, the Revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee also simultaneously impugned the order of the CIT(A) on legal aspects in its Cross Objection. 7. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee in the Revenue s appeal adverted to the Cross Objection filed by the assessee and pointed out that the basis of issue of notice under Section 153A is search of Locker No.7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... favour, there is no legally sound basis available to the Department for assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A and consequently assessment order passed under Section 153A is bad in law at the threshold and thus cannot survive in the light of the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shah-E-Naaz Judge vs. Additional Director of Income Tax (Inv.)-Unit-VI, (2018) 100 taxmann.com 346 (Delhi). 8. Ld. Counsel thus urged for the dismissal of the Revenue s appeal at the threshold and upholding the Ground no.1 of the Cross Objection raising the legal ground. Ld. Counsel further submitted that ground no.2 is not being pressed and grounds no.3 and 4 are general in nature and does not call for any specific adjudication. 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound to be illegal and consequentially set aside in the case of one of the joint holder, i.e., sister Shah-E-Naaz Judge. The ratio of the decision would naturally apply mutatis mutandis in the case of other holder of the locker namely, the assessee herein where the search warrant on such locker was found to be in violation of Section 132(1) of the Act. The search warrant and consequential assessment u/s.153A in the case of other joint holder thus cannot be seen differently. Hence, on the basis of judgment rendered in the case of Shah E Naaz Judge vs. Additional Director of Income Tax (Inv)-Unit-VI, (2018) 100 taxamann.com 346 (Delhi), we find merit in the Ground no.1 of the Cross Objection. Consequently, we hold that the search authorizat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
