TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. As also the plea of the assessee that the amount has been already added in the assessment of M/s. Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd. In such circumstances, the same amount cannot be again added in hands of the assessee. For this proposition, we refer to the decision of Surya Agrotech Infrastructure Ltd. order [ 2023 (9) TMI 391 - DELHI HIGH COURT] where it was held that when undisclosed income already having been taxed in hands of Flagship Company the same could not be again subjected to tax in the hands of assessee company. This case law is applicable in this case and the sum which has been taxed in the hands of Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd. cannot again be taxed in the hands of assessee. Thus, the addition needs to be deleted on this count a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rial; found during the course of search qua year under consideration. (ii) That the notice w/s 153A and consequential addition of Rs. 24,25,000/- being based on material found during search on third party, the assessing officer grossly erred in relying upon the same while framing assessment u/s 153A in total disregard to specific provisions of section 153C of the Income tax Act, 1961. (iii) That in absence of recording of satisfaction in terms of section 153C or issuance of valid notice u/s 153C, the impugned proceedings u/s 153A and addition is illegal and bad in law. 2(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer was not justified in passing the Assessment Order without issuing mandatory noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of NTPC vs. CIT (1999) 157 CTR (SC) 249Ed. In view of above, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal committed an error apparent from the face of the record by not considering the fact that entries of cash payments made in the loose sheets were not in the name of the assessee but in the name of Mr. R. Bawa, Mr. Vikash Aggarwal and IRCTC and further noted that the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- which was added to the Income of the assessee was infact a cash entry in the name of IRCTC and the assessee had not nexus with the same. Therefore, in our view there is a mistake apparent from record in Tribunal's order dated 21.02.2019 passed in ITA No. 3083/Del/2012 (AY 2009-10), hence, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 65,000/- was treated as undisclosed income of the assessee. Upon assessee s appeal part relief given by the CIT(A) of Rs. 40,000/- and he confirmed Rs. 24,25,000/-. 6. Against this order, assessee has filed appeal before ITAT. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. The Learned Counsel of the assessee submitted that in this case, the addition is based upon one sheet of paper found on the premises of M/s. Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd., that these were with reference to various expenses of Rs. 24,65,000/- pertaining to M/s. Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd. incurred through the assessee. That based on 3 rd party document, Assessing Officer considered addition vide order under section 153A even though the same is 3rd party document and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (i) Ashish Plastic Industries vs. ACIT 373 ITR 45 (SC) (ii) PCIT vs. Surya Agrotech Infrastructure Ltd. [2023] 154 taxmann.com 156. (Delhi HC) 7. Per contra, Learned DR relied upon the order of the authorities below. 8. Upon careful consideration, we find that first challenge of the assessee is to the assessment framed under section 153A of the Act. Undisputedly, the document on the basis of which addition has been made was not recovered from the search upon assessee but from the premises of M/s. Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd. In such circumstances, assessment should have been framed under section 153C of the Act following the proper procedure as per section 153C of the Act. Having not followed the mandate of section 153C of the Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estion of law that requires our consideration. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. Subhash Khattar (ITA 60/2017 dated 25/07/2017) wherein it was held as under : 7. A question was posed to the learned counsel for the Revenue whether in the present case anything incriminating has been found when the premises of the Assessee was searched. The answer was in the negative. The entire case against the Assessee was based on what was found during the search of the premises of the AEZ Group. It is thus apparent on the face of it, that the notice to the Assessee under Section 153A of the Act was misconceived since the so-called incriminating material was not found during the search of the Assessee's pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
