TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 164
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 20.10.2008 and during the course of search at the residential premises at F-6/5, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, certain documents belonging to the assessee-company were seized. On the basis of the documents so found belonging to the assessee-company, proceedings were initiated in the case of the assessee-company under section 153C read with section 153A of the I.T. Act. The cases of the assessee were centralized. Statutory notices were issued and assessments were completed under section 153C/143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, in all the assessment years under appeals. The A.O. made the following additions against the assessee in different assessment years as under : A.Y. Unexplained purchases under section 69C of IT Act (Rs) Disallowance of expenses (Rs) Share capital under section 68 of IT Act (Rs) 2003-2004 36,50,180 3,76,465 4,51,000 2004-2005 35,77,652 4,04,530 --- 2005-2006 35,00,461 4,25,023 --- 2006-2007 39,81,920 4,04,612 --- 2007-2008 2,40,13,860 7,18,405 --- 2008-2009 90,89,386 33,76,450 --- 2.1. The assessee challenged the above additions and assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C of the I.T. Act, 1961, before the Ld. CIT(A). It was contented....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... barred, bad in law as well as the additions on merits were challenged as reproduced above. 6. We have heard the Learned Representatives of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Learned Counsel for the Assessee as regards appeals for A.Ys. 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 contended that the date of search under section 132 of the I.T. Act is 20.10.2008 in the case of Shri B.K. Dhingra, Smt. Poonam Dhingra and M/s. Madhusudhan Buildcon Private Limited. PB-1 is the satisfaction note recorded under section 153C of the I.T. Act for the A.Ys. 2003-2004 to 2008-2009, Dated 08.09.2010. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the connected cases with the cases of Shri B.K. Dhingra etc., are RRJ Securities Limited as well as M/s. Sanchit Consultants Pvt. Ltd.,. He has submitted that date of search for initiation of proceedings under section 153C of the I.T. Act is not relevant because the date of satisfaction note is relevant through which incriminating documents have been handed over by the A.O. of the searched person to the A.O. of the assessee i.e., other person. The date of satisfaction note is 08.09.2010, therefore, assessments under section 153C could be f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ties Ltd. (supra), wherein after considering the provisos to sections 153A and 153C of the Act, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has observed as under : "As discussed hereinbefore, in terms of proviso to Section 153C of the Act, a reference to the date of the search under the second proviso to Section 153A of the Act has to be construed as the date of handing over of assets/documents belonging to the Assessee (being the person other than the one searched) to the AO having jurisdiction to assess the said Assessee. Further proceedings, by virtue of Section 153C(1) of the Act, would have to be in accordance with Section 153A of the Act and the reference to the date of search would have to be construed as the reference to the date of recording of satisfaction. It would follow that the six assessment years for which assessments/ reassessments could be made under Section 153C of the Act would also have to be construed with reference to the date of handing over of assets/documents to the AO of the Assessee. In this case, it would be the date of the recording of satisfaction under Section 153C of the Act, i.e., 8th September, 2010. In this view, the assessments made in respect of a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and the same being void ab initio deserve to be quashed. Accordingly, the cross objections of the assessee for A.Yrs. 2003-04 and 2004- 05 deserve to be allowed on this legal issue only and since the assessments for these years are held as void, the appeals of the Revenue for these years deserve to fail. 15. Adverting to the merits of additions challenged by the Revenue and by assessee in remaining appeals and cross objections, we find that on the identical contentions of the parties and similar facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT, Delhi Benches on the basis of same search dated 20.10.2008, has decided the merits of same additions made on the basis of similar documents found, in the case of assessee's group, DCIT vs. M/s. Devi Dayal Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. (Revenue's appeal Nos. 5430 to 5436/Del./2013) and assessee's cross objections Nos. 83 to 88/Del./ 2014) for A.Yrs. 2003-04 to 2008-09, have restored the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer vide order dated 10.09.2014 observing as under: "Ld. Counsel of the assessee further stated that assessment framed is against the scheme of the Act whereby the reassessment u/s. 153C in such cases is to be confined to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed the records. We have also gone through the orders of the lower authorities, Paper Book filed by the assessee and the case law relied upon by the assessee. We find that Ld. Counsel of the assessee filed a Paper Book having pages 1 to 27 containing the assessment records etc. and he drawn our attention towards the Page No. 1 of the same Paper Book viz. Satisfaction Note dated 5.7.2010, the same is reproduced here-below:- "Satisfaction Note for issuing notice u/s. 153C of the I.T. Act, 1961 in the case of M/s Devi Dayal Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Lane W-17-A, House No. 18, Western Avenue, Sainik Farm South, New Delhi, AACCD454J for A.Y. 2003-04 to 2008-09. 05/7/2010 Documents at pages 1 to 25 of Annexure A-25 seized by the Party R-2 from the premises at F-6/5, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi during the course of search conducted u/s. 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 20.10.2008 in the case of Sh. BK Dhingra, Smt. Poonam Dhingra, M/s Madhusudan Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. have been found to belong to M/s Devi Dayal Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Lane W-17-A, House NO. 18, Western Avenue, Sainik Farm South, New Delhi which has not been covered u/s. 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly, in terms of provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent years, the proceedings will have to be closed. If the returns filed by the other person for the period of six years does not show that the income reflected in the document has been accounted for, additions will be accordingly made after following the procedure prescribed by law and after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to such other person. That, in sum and substance, is the position." 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 continuation of the proceedings under Section 153C to which the seized documents do not belong. Therefore, the Assessing Officer will drop the proceedings initiated under Section 153 of the years to which the seized documents do not belong. For the year to which the seized documents belonged, he will verify whether the transaction reflected by the seized documents are duly accounted for in the books of account. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee only after recording the satisfaction note under section 153C of the I.T. Act. He has, therefore, submitted that the A.Ys. 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 would be beyond the block period i.e., beyond 6 years and as such no assessments could be framed under section 153C of the I.T. Act, 1961. 7.2. However, as regards the remaining assessment years, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee argued on merits and submitted that the Department has given a reply to the assessee Dated 30.12.2014/02.01.2015 whereby the copies of the seized documents have been provided to the assessee which shows no incriminating material have been found against the assessee for making the above additions. He has submitted that the issue on merits has also been decided by the ITAT G-Bench, Delhi in the case of DCIT, Central Circle-21, New Delhi vs., M/s. Sanchit Consultants Pvt. Ltd.,, Dated 29.01.2018 in ITA.Nos.6410 to 6415/Del./2013, in which the Tribunal following the decision in assessee's group case of DCIT vs. M/s. Devi Dayal Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd., restored the matter back to the file of A.O. to decide the issue afresh in the light of the above decision. All the matters were, therefore, allowed for st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2004-2005 are beyond the scope of Section 153C of the I.T. Act, 1961 and the same being void abinitio, deserves to be quashed. The issue is, therefore, covered by the Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of RRJ Securities Ltd., (supra) as well as Order of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Sanchit Consultants Pvt. Ltd., (supra). The Ld. D.R. during the course of hearing also contended that in case A.O. of the assessee and the person searched are same, then, the handing-over of the seized document would be the same date i.e., date of search. However, the CBDT vide Circular No.24 of 2015 Dated 31.12.2015 issued directions with regard to recording of the satisfaction note under section 153C of the I.T. Act and clarified that even if the A.O. of the searched person and the other person is one and the same, then also, he is required to record his satisfaction as has been held by the Courts. Therefore, the provisions of Law shall have to be complied with for initiating the proceedings under section 153C of the I.T. Act, 1961. We may also note that seized documents could be handedover by the A.O. of the searched person to the A.O. of the assessee/other person only after record....