TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 160
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of delay of 8 days in filing the cross-objection due to inadvertence on the part of office of the Ld. CA of the assessee. He also cited several decisions referred in the application to support its contention that there was no malafide behind the delay. The Ld. CIT DR opposed the same. 4. Considering the above submission we do not find reason to doubt the explanation furnished by the assessee for the delay. We thus condone the delay to prefer the disposal of the matter on its merits. In turn application is allowed. 5. Since the issue raised in objections Nos.-1 & 1.1 of the cross-objection preferred by the assessee questioning the validity of assessment framed u/s 153C of the Act goes to the root of the matter, we prefer to adjudicate upon it first. 6. We have heard and considered the arguments advanced by the parties in view of the orders of the authorities below, material available on record and the decisions relied upon. 7. The facts in brief are that search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was carried out at the premises of Raj Darbar Group of cases on 31.07.2008. The AO noted that during the course of search operation certain documents belonging to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rn was accepted as such no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was served upon the assessee. Thereafter notice u/s 153C of the Act was issued to the assessee as a result of search conducted at the premises of Rajdarbar Group. In response to the notice issued u/s 153C of the Act return of income was filed declaring a loss as was declared in the original return of income. He submitted that the AO made addition of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act on account of alleged unexplained cash credit being not satisfied with the genuineness of the share capital received by the assessee and addition of Rs. 34,61,585/- was made on account of disallowance of the claimed short term capital loss on sale of land. He submitted that both these additions are not based on incriminating material detected as a result of search on Rajdarbar Group of cases. He submitted that as a result of search conducted on Rajdarbar Group of cases proceedings u/s 153C were also initiated for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2009-10, however no additions have been made therein on the basis of any incriminating material found as a result of search. Thus the additions made by the AO during the year are without jurisdiction. Ld. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that it is a well-established principle of interpretation of statute that the words of "statutes" must be understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense unless the language of statues is ambiguous. He submitted that language of section 153A is simple, clear and unambiguous. It empowers the AO to issue notice and make assessment of specified six years where a search is initiated u/s 132 or requisition is made u/s 132A of the Act. He placed reliance on the following decisions:- (1) IPCA Laboratory Ltd. vs DCIT 266 ITR 521 (SC); (2) Prakash Nath Khanna & Another vs CIT & Another 266 ITR 1 (SC); (3) Padmasundara Rao (DECD.) & Others vs State of Tamil Nadu & Others 255 ITR 147 (SC); (4) Indian Rayon Corporation Ltd. vs CIT 231 ITR 26 (Bom.); (5) Smt. Tarulata Shyam & Others vs CIT [108 ITR 345] (SC) 13. Having gone through the decisions relied upon, we find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. (cited supra) after discussing the issue in detail has been pleased to come to the conclusion that in the satisfaction note apart from saying that the documents belong to the petitioner and that the AO is satisfied that it is a fit case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "belongs to" the purchaser of the property although it obviously "relates to" or again "refers to" vendor. In this example if the purchaser's premises are searched and registered with sale deed is seized, it cannot be said that it "belongs to" the vendor just because his name is mentioned in the document. In the converse case if the vendor's premises are searched and a copy of the sale deed is seized, it cannot be said that the said copy "belongs to" the purchaser just because it refers to him and the purchasers holds the original sale deed. In this light, it is obvious that none of the three sets of documents/copies of preference shares, undersigned leaves of cheque books and the copy of the supply and loan agreement can be said to "belong to" the petitioner. With these observations the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to hold that the ingredients of section 153C of the Act have not been satisfied. Consequently notices issued u/s 153C were quashed. 15. Similar are the facts of the present case before us. The documents seized during the course of search and seizure proceedings from the Rajdarbar Group have been referred as "relating to" the assessee, in the satisfaction note reco....