TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 898X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Ankit Gupta [ 2017 (9) TMI 670 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] - Appeal of assessee allowed. - ITA No. 1839/DEL/2016 - - - Dated:- 20-1-2023 - SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA , JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Assessee : Shri Sandeep Sapra , Adv For the Department : Shri H. K. Choudhary , CIT - DR ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : - This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A) IV, Kanpur dated 10.02.2016 pertaining to Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The grievances of the assessee read as under: 1. The appellant is a private limited company incorporated on 08.04.2009. A search was conducted on Godwin group of companies and their directors at their various premises on 09.09.2010. During the relevant year the appellant filed its return of income on 19.03.2012. declaring a loss of Rs.13,479/-. The appellant was issued notice dated 11.01,2013 u/s 153C read with section 153A of the income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assistant commissioner of Income Tax. Central Circle, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as Ld. A.O.) completed the assessment proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) was carried out on 09.09 2010 in Godwin group of cases, which included the assessee. Certain incriminating documents relating to the assessee were found and seized and the Assessing Officer formed a belief that the case of the assessee falls within the four walls of section 153C of the Act and, accordingly, after recording satisfaction, issued statutory notices to the assessee. 5. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer referred to Annexure LP-10 which was seized from the site office at Greenwood City Colony on Meerut-Partapur Bypass Road, Meerut. Page no. 19 of Annexure LP-10 is the Receipts cum Agreement to Sell dated 28.03.2009. The relevant extract of the said Receipts cum Agreement as mentioned by the Assessing Officer in his assessment order at page 2 reads as under: we Amarjeet Singh Randhawa S/o Sh. H.S. Randhawa for himself and GPA others mentioned in the Registry (hereinafter referred to as the seller) received a sum of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- (Rupees one crore ten lacs only) vide c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not in existence on 28.03.2009. The ld. CIT(A), accordingly, deleted the addition of Rs. 1.10 crores but confirmed the balance. 11. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that the seized documents do not belong to the assessee and it is a settled proposition of law that the seized documents on the basis of which assessment is completed u/s 153C of the Act must belong to other persons. 12. The ld. counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the receipt cum agreement to sell dated 28.03.2009 and pointed out that such receipt cum agreement neither bears the name of the appellant company not is mentioned therein that the same was executed by Shri Bhupinder Singh Bajwa in the capacity of Director of the appellant company. 13. The ld. counsel for the assessee once again stated that the receipt cum agreement to sell is dated 28.03.2009 whereas the appellant company came into existence on 08.04.2009 as per the Certificate of Incorporation. Therefore, it cannot be a party to the said receipt cum agreement dated 28.03.2009. 14. Strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Singhad Technical Education Societ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs P. Ltd. v. ACIT [2015] 370 ITR 295 (Del), that for the purpose of initiating proceedings under Section 153C of the Act, the seized documents had to be shown to belong to the other person and not merely pertaining to such other person. The change brought about in this regard in Section 153 C of the Act by way of amendment has been given prospective effect from 1st June 2015. The amended provision therefore has no application to the cases on hand. 7. The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society [2017] 84 taxmann.com 290 (SC) settles the legal position in favour of the Assessees. The Supreme Court, while affirming the judgment of the Bombay High Court, approved the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Kamleshbhai Dharamshihhai Patel v. Commissioner of Income Tax-Ill, (2013) 263 CTR (Guj) 362 that a document seized should belong to a person other than the person referred to in Section 153A of the Act . It has been categorically observed by the Supreme Court that the above position of law laid down by the Gujarat High Court is correct. 8. Consequently, this Court rejects the contention of the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
