TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 1194
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e background facts are that on 16th January, 2013, a search under Section 132 of the Act was initiated and conducted in the case of Earth Infrastructures Ltd ('EIL') wherein certain documents were seized. When the panchnama for the search was prepared on 18th January 2013, the name of Real Gain Estate Pvt. Ltd. ('RGEPL') was also added to it. It is stated that during the course of search, a letter dated 27th January, 2010 written by the Petitioner to RGEPL was found. It contained the details of the commission payments made by the Petitioner to RGEPL in that year with a request to RGEPL to issue bills to the Petitioner. A three-page copy of the ledger account of RGEPL maintained by the Petitioner as proof of payments made through official channel was also seized. 3. The aforesaid seized documents were handed over to the Assessing Officer ('AO') of EIL. However, only one document, viz., the letter dated 27th January, 2010 written by the Petitioner to RGEPL was handed over to the AO of the Petitioner. 4. The impugned notice dated 23rd July, 2014 under Section 153 C of the Act was issued to the Petitioner by the Respondent directing it to file its return of income for AY 2007-200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ertain other documents recovered during search. At that stage, the Petitioner filed a writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 2996 of 2015, in this Court assailing the assumption of jurisdiction and issuance of notice to the Petitioner under Section 153 C of the Act. On 12th January, 2016, the Petitioner sought leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to urge all the points raised therein before the AO in accordance with law. The petition stood dismissed as withdrawn and the interim order was vacated. 6. On 11th March, 2016, the Petitioner furnished to the AO answers to the questionnaire. On 17th March, 2016, the Petitioner replied to the notice under Section 153 C of the Act. Inter alia it was pointed out that there was no 'satisfaction note' prepared by the AO in the case of searched person i.e., EIL. Further, the seized documents belonged to RGEPL and not the Petitioner. The Petitioner pointed out that taking the date of initiation of the proceedings under Section 153C to be 21st July, 2014 in terms of the 'satisfaction note', the relevant AYs would be AYs 2009-10 to 2014-15 and not AYs 2007-08 to 2012-13. It was therefore submitted that the initiation of the Section 153 C proceedings ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed as such. 8. It is at that stage that the second writ petition being WP (C) No. 2769 of 2016 was filed by the Petitioner in this Court. In that petition, notice was issued on 29th March, 2016 and an interim order was passed that the Assessment order pursuant to the impugned notice dated 23rd July, 2014 shall not be given effect to till the next date of hearing. That interim order has continued since. 9. The Court has heard the submissions of Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr Rahul Chaudhary, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue. 10. Mr Sabharwal relied upon the decisions in CIT (Central)-III v Kabul Chawla (supra) CIT-7 v. RRJ Securities Ltd. (supra) and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-06 v. Nikki Drugs and Chemicals Private Ltd. (2016) 386 ITR 680 (Del) to urge one condition for the applicability of Section 153 C of the Act, viz., that the material seized had to 'belong' to the person other than the searched person was not fulfilled in the present case. Reliance was also placed on the decision of this Court in Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2015) 370 ITR 295 (Del). He reiterated the cont....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erpreted Section 153 C of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment, explained that the expression 'belongs to' should not be confused with the expression 'relates to'. One of the instances cited in the said decision was a registered sale deed, copies of which could be available both with the vendor and the vendee. The copy available with the vendee could not be said to 'belong' to the vendor and vice versa. 15. In Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-06 v. Nikki Drugs and Chemicals Ltd. (supra), the searched person was SVP Builders India Ltd. The photocopy of documents, the original of which were with the Assessee in that case, were recovered from SVP Builders during the search. In the circumstances, it was observed by the Court as under: "21. ..... In the present case, although the photocopies of the documents handed over to SVP Builders India Ltd. may be copies of the original documents that belong to the assessee, the said photocopies would belong to SVP Builders India Ltd. as the same were handed over to it in connection with the investment made by the Assessee. Similarly, a certified copy of the Assessee's resolution signed by its Directors, would al....