TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 1036
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd seizure operation was carried out in the case of Modi Family Group on 09.11.2011. During the course of search at the residential premises of Sh. Krishna Kumar Modi at A-1, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi a copy of sale deed executed on 18.12.2007 by Sh. Sanjeev Lal in favour of M/s. Beena Fashions N Foods Private Limited through its director Ms. Beena Modi was seized and annexed as A-1, page 93 to 101 by page No. D-I. The Assessing Officer after recording his satisfaction vide order sheet entry dated 29.01.2014 issued notice u/s. 153C of the IT Act to the assessee on 05.02.2014. In response to the notice u/s. 153C, the assessee submitted that the return filed originally on 29.11.2006 may be treated as return filed in response to notice u/s. 15....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d jewellery to the extent of Rs. 9,69,307/-. However, in absence of any supporting evidence to his satisfaction the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 8,01,683/- to the total income of the assessee on account of purchase of jewellery. 6. The Assessing Officer similarly made addition of Rs. 1,74,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposit in the bank account and subsequently converted into investment by invoking the provision of section 68 of the IT Act. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs. 29,24,328/- on account of depreciation claimed on land. Accordingly the Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 3,97,11,278/- . 7. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the various additions made. The relevant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ails obtained during proceedings under section 153C/153A. 7.12 In view of the above discussions and findings and looking to the facts of this case and position of law as supported by various judgments including the decisions by the jurisdictional High Court, the additions so made by the AO is not found sustainable, as far as this proceedings are concerned, and the same is directed to be deleted. 8. Since, the issue has been decided on the legal grounds stating that such additions cannot be made under section 153C/153A of the Act and accordingly, the addition has not been sustained, the other grounds relating to the merit of this case has not been considered. However, in the case of depreciation on land the AO may take suitable action, i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that due process for recordinq of satisfaction u/s 153C has not been followed as there was no requirement as per the provision of the Income lax Act, to record separate Satisfaction Note in case of searched party as the AO was same. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that no incriminating document was seized as the requirement of seized documents being incriminating in nature for initiation of proceeding u/s 153C is not given in the Act. The only requirement is that the seized document should have a bearing on the determination of total income. 5. That the order of the CIT(A) is perverse, erroneous and is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was fully justified in deleting the various additions. 11. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. She submitted that the Assessing Officer of the search party and the Assessing Officer of the assessee in the instant case are one and same, therefore, the findings of the CIT(A) that due process of recording of satisfactions u/s. 153 C has not been followed is incorrect. 12. Referring to the provision to section 153C of the Act she submitted that there is nothing in the Act that provisions of section 153C cannot be invoked, in absence of any incriminating document found or seized during the course of search. The only requirement is that the seized document should have a bearing on the determination....