TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 993
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ia that :- "Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deletion the addition of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- on the basis that Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as Hon'ble ITAT in assessee's own case for A.Y.2010-11 has held that initiation of assessment proceedings u/s 153C was invalid, ignoring the fact that after the amendment in section 153C, which is c1arificatory and curative and thus retrospective in nature, the requirement, is that the documents must pertain to the assessee and must have a bearing on the income of the assessee. Also, Department is in process of filing of SLP against the order of Delhi High Court in ITA No. 1004/2015 & 1005/2015, in assessee's case for AY 2010-11." 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adj....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... way of filing the appeal who has deleted the addition of Rs. 4 crores by following the order passed by the ITAT and Hon'ble Delhi High Court by allowing the appeal. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the ld. CIT (A), the Revenue has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal. 5. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Undisputedly, ld. CIT (A) has deleted the addition of Rs. 4 crores by following the decisions rendered by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.3343/Del/2013 & Ors. vide order dated 29.05.2015, conf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....igh Court of Delhi further held that it is necessary before the provisions of section 153C of the Act can be invoked that the AO of the searched person must be satisfied that the seized material, (which includes documents) does not belong to person searched and the impugned satisfaction note dated 30.6.2011, there is nothing to indicate that the seized document Annexure A-1 does not belong to Shri Lalit Modi and we also note that there is no disclaimer on the part of Shri Lalit Modi with regard to this document Annexure A-1. 34. We further hold that finding of a document in possession of a searched person does not necessarily mean that the same "belongs to" or "belonged to" the other person whose name is mentioned therein. We have ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tkar Fincap (decision dated 16th November, 2016 in ITA No. 82 of 2016) and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 v. Nau Nidh Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (decision dated 3rd February, 2017 in ITA No. 58/2017). 16. At the outset, it requires to be noticed that the search in the present case took place on 19th June 2009 i.e., prior to the amendment in Section 153 C (1) of the Act with effect from 1st June 2015. Therefore, it is not open to the Revenue to seek to point out that the document in question, "pertains to" or "relates to‟ the Assessee. The example given by this Court in Pepsico India Holding Ltd. (supra) is that of a photocopy of a sale deed which contains the names of the vendor and the vendee being found with the b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wing you page No.5 of the said Annexure A-1. Kindly explain the transactions mentioned in it. Ans. The Chaurasia family is known to me. At the time of execution of sale deed in favour of Mrs. Vinita Chaurasia by M/s Suncity Projects Ltd. in respect of commercial space purchased in Vasant Square Mall, I was present as a witness and signed on the documents Conveying titles as a witness before sub registrar. It happened somewhere in May 2009. Since I am in real estate business, incidentally after coming back from execution of the said sale deed, I was approached by a broker at my residence making enquiry about availability of commercial space in Vasant Square Mall at Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. Since I accompanied Mrs. Vinita Chaurasia wh....