TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 1044
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emained uncomplied with. Fresh notice u/s 153C of Act dated 09.08.2010 was issued to the assessee company, at the new address which was supplied by A.R. of the assessee company, requiring it to file the return for the Assessment Year 2005-06. Return of income for the Assessment Year 2005-06 was filed by the assessee on 25.08.2010 declaring income of Rs. 350/-. The return filed by the assessee company was the same as that of filed under section 139 of the Act on 24/10/2005. 4. Notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) along with questionnaire were issued to the assessee by the AO on 09/09/2010, fixing the case for hearing and to furnish necessary details by 20/09/2010. But the assessee failed to furnish any details. In order to complete the assessment proceedings, final notice u/s 142(1) dated 03/11/2010 was issued by the AO to the assessee giving one more opportunity to attend the hearing and furnish necessary details. This notice was also remained uncomplied with. In the event of continuous non-cooperation and keeping in view the limitation in the matter, notice u/s 144 dated 19.11.2010 was issued by the AO, giving the assessee last opportunity to furnish the required details for the complet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....herefore, this amount of Rs. 75 lakh was added to the income of the assessee as per the provisions of section 68 of the Act. 10. For Assessment Year 2006-07 an amount of Rs. 35 lakh was added to the income of the assessee as per the provision of Section 68 of the Act. 11. For Assessment Year 2007-08 an amount of Rs. 2,41,00,000/- was added to the income of the assessee as per the provision of Section 68 of the Act. 12. For Assessment Year 2008-09 an amount of Rs. 7 lakh was added to the income of the assessee as per the provision of Section 68 of the Act. 13. Aggrieved with these assessment, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld CIT(A) challenging the jurisdiction as well as the assessments on the ground that they are illegal as these assessments were not based on any material found or seized during the course of search conducted in the case of Rajdarbar Group of companies. According to the ld CIT(A), the AO rightly assumed jurisdiction u/s 153A, and was of the view that assessment u/s 153A are mandatory even when no incriminating material is found in the course of search and confirmed the assessment made by the AO. 14. Aggrieved by the said order of the ld CIT(A), the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in absence of any evidence to the contrary and without making any independent enquiries, the addition made is not tenable as has been held in the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. reported in 159 ITR 78. 4 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the levy of interest under section 234B of the Act which is not leviable on the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant company. It is therefore prayed that, that the order made by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may kindly be set-aside and the assessment framed be held to be without jurisdiction and in any case addition made and sustained along-with interest levied may kindly be deleted and appeal of the appellant company be allowed." 16. The ld CIT DR objected the appeal of the ground that the appeal is barred by limitation and the assessee has failed to show sufficient cause in his application for condonation of delay and cited the case of Surinder Kumar Boveja v. CWT reported in (2006) 287 ITR 52 (Delhi) of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. 17. On the other hand the ld AR submitted that there was only 28 days of delay....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e date on which the satisfaction note u/s 153C has been recorded against the assessee in the instant case before us i.e. on 23.07.2010 made a 'ditto' copy except change in the name of the assessee, the satisfaction note which is also reproduced in Page 8 of the said order, which reads as under: (and the finding of the co-ordinate bench in respect to the same document on which reliance was placed by the AO to initiate 153C proceedings). ""23.07.2010 M/ s V.K. Fiscal Services P. Ltd. (A. Y. 2008-09) Satisfaction note for proceedings u/ s 153C of the Income Tax Act. 1961 A search operation was conducted on Raj Darbar Group of cases on 31.7.2008. During the course of search operations at the premises of: (i) Party A-7, Global Reality Ventures P. Ltd.: various papers were found and seized belonging to M/ s VK Fiscal Services P. Ltd. The annexure are marked as under: Party A-7: Annexure A-45 : Hard disc containing books of accounts of M/ s VK Fiscal Services P. Ltd. Thus the proceedings u/ s 153 C read with section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are being initiated in the above case. Sd/- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 12, New Delhi." 11.1. A perusal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich are, once again, being reiterated by the learned counsel for the Revenue before us. Those decisions are Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Patel v. CIT [2013] 214 Taxman 558/31 taxmann.com 50 (Guj.); ClT v. Classic Enterprises [2013] 358 ITR 465/219 Taxman 237/35 taxmann.com 244 (All.) and a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in SSP Aviation Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 346 ITR 177/207 Taxman 260/20 taxmann.com 214. This Court had indicated in its judgement in Pepsi Foods (P.) Ltd. (supra) that the case of Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Patel (supra) was distinguishable on facts. Those observations would apply to the present writ petitions also. As regards the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Classic Enterprises (supra), this Court had indicated that it could not agree with the conclusions and observations of the Allahabad High Court inasmuch as the decision of the Allahabad High Court was premised on a consideration of the provisions of Section 158BD of the said Act which are entirely different from the provisions of Section 153C of the said Act. Furthermore, with regard to the decision in SSP Aviation Ltd. (supra), this court had noted that the said decision does not militate agai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in favour of the assessee has to be adopted. Apart from this, the material observation of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Savesh Kumar Agarwal (supra) is to be found in paragraph 20 thereof where it has been observed that the assessee established that the seized silver belongs to M/s. Sarvesh Jewellers, Bareilly - the petitioner. In other words, the person from whom the bullion was seized was able to establish that it did not belong to him but to Sarvesh Jewellers. It is in that context that the provisions of Section 153C of the Act were invoked inasmuch as the Assessing Officer would then be considered as having been satisfied that the bullion which was seized from the searched person did not belong to the searched person but to some other person (in that case M/s. Sarvesh Jewellers, Bareilly). 8. From the foregoing discussion it is evident that in order that the Assessing Officer of the searched person comes to the satisfaction that documents or materials found during the search belong to a person other than the searched person, it is necessary that he arrives at the satisfaction that the said documents or materials do not belong to the searched person. We may point ou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the documents it is quite possible that the originals may be owned by some other person. Unless it is established that the documents in question, whether they be photocopies or originals, do not belong to the searched person, the question of invoking Section 153C of the said Act does not arise. 16. Thirdly, we would also like to make it clear that the assessing officers should not confuse the expression "belongs to" with the expressions "relates to" or "refers to". A registered sale deed, for example, "belongs to" the purchaser of the property although it obviously "relates to" or "refers to" the vendor. In this example if the purchasers premises are searched and the registered 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 he (the purchaser) holds the original sale deed. In this light, it is obvious that none of the three sets of documents - copies of preference shares, unsigned leaves of cheque books and t....