TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 2167
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 153A1153C of the IT Act? 4. The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal." 3. In its cross-objections the assessee has taken following grounds: "1. It is contended that the provisions of Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) are not applicable at all and the assessment order passed is] s 153CI 143(3) of the Act is without jurisdiction. 2. It is contended that neither any search was initiated against the assessee u/s 132(1) of the-Act, nor any books of accounts, other documents or any other assets were requisitioned u] s 132A of the Act and hence the assessment made u/s 153C/ 153A of the Act is invalid. 3. The order dated 20.12.2007 passed u/s 153C read with Section 143(3) of the Act is without jurisdiction. 4. It is contended that the additions made in the order u/s 153C/ 153A of the Act are not qua search material and need to be deleted. 5. That no corresponding seized material was found in the course of search for subject additions and the relevant Income Tax Return for the said Asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of search, certain documents/ books of account, belonging to the assessee company were seized from the premises of Sh. Manvinder Singh (Party A-10) and M/s Flex Industries Ltd. (now M/s Uflex Ltd. Party B-2), in whose names/ cases warrants of authorization had been issued. These documents were seized vide Annexures A-9 of party A-10 and A-3 of Party B2. These documents, seized from various premises, were as under: Party Nos. Premises Annexure Page Nos. A-10 Residence of Sh. Manvinder Singh A-9 12 and 23 B-2 Office of Flex Industries Ltd. A-3 35 to 66 5. Consequently, the AO issued notice u/s 153C, in response to which assessee filed return of income, declaring nil income. However, the assessee had paid taxes on book profit of Rs. 71,33,231/- u/s 115JA . 6. The assessee was engaged in the business of investment in shares and securities, sale/purchase of shares and securities. The AO has observed that from the perusal of P&L A/c of the assessee for the year under consideration, it was observed that the assessee had received Rs. 19,93,025/- on account of commission from M/s Akshay Trading Corporation and Rs. 47,37,247/- on account of brokerage from M/s Enam Sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssued for assessment year 2000-01 to 2005-06." 10. He pointed out that perusal of the satisfaction recorded before issuing the notice u/s 153C of the Act makes it clear that the documents claimed as belonging to the assessee had not been discussed in the assessment order. 11. Ld. counsel referred to the decision of the ITAT Bangalore Bench in the case of P. Shrinivas Naik Vs. ACIT (2008) 306 ITR (AT) 411 (Bang.), wherein the term 'belonging to' had been examined. It was, inter alia, held that term 'belonging' implied something more than the idea of casual association. It involves the notion of continuity and indicates one more or less intimate connection with the person over a period of time. He also relied on the decision of Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Meghmani Organics Ltd. (ITA 2938 to 2942/AHD/2008), inter alia, holding as under: "In order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and have only single assessment and in respect of pending assessments, Section 153 A to Section I53C of the Act were proposed to be introduced. If that be the intention, in assessments u/s I53C the issue can be considered only if the pending assessment is abated and not otherwise. If the original ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ficer is satisfied that any undisclosed income belongs to any person, other than the person with respect to whom search was made under section 132 or whose books of account or other documents or assets were requisitioned under section I32A, he shall proceed against such other person under section I58BC. 13. Thus a condition precedent/or issuing notice under section I53C and assessing or reassessing income of such other person, is that the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned should belong to such person. If the said requirement is not 'Satisfied', resort cannot be had to the provisions of section I53C of the Act. 14. Examining the facts of the present case in the fight of the aforesaid statutory scheme, it is an admitted position as emerging from the record of the case, that the documents in question, namely, the three loose papers recovered during the search proceedings do not belong to the petitioner. It may be that there is a reference to the petitioner inasmuch as his name is reflected in the list under the heading Samutkarsh Members Details and certain details are given under different columns a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... year 2000-01. 18. Ld. counsel referred to the submissions made before ld. CIT(A), contained at pages 107 to 131 of the PB and pointed out that on page 118 of the PB, it was clearly pointed out that seized papers pertained to FY 2004-05 (wrongly mentioned as FY 2005-06) and had nothing to do with the assessment year under consideration. Apart from this, both these transactions with M/s AR Airways (P) Ltd. belonging to Shri Manvinder Singh were duly reflected in the books of a/c of M/s Anbishika Consultants Pvt. Ltd. 19. Ld. counsel further referred to page 44 of the case laws paper book, wherein the decision in the case of DCIT Central Circle Vs. Devi Dayal Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (ITA nos. 5430 to 5436/Del/2013) is contained and pointed out that in para 9.2 of the order it has been observed as under: "9.2. Considering the facts of the case and the arguments of both the sides, we set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-examination of the issue in the light of the above decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court i.e., the Assessing Officer will first verify the years to which the seized documents belonged. There would be no justification for continua....