TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 202
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee has also filed cross objections in Revenue's appeals in ITA No.220/CTK/2013 for the assessment year 2008-09 and in ITA No.221/CTK/2013 for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. Shri M.K.Gautam, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue and Shri Sunil Mishra, ld AR appeared for the assessee. 3. It was submitted by ld CIT DR that the assessee is a company engaged in manufacture of M.S.Ingot. There was a search on the assessee on 28.5.2008. As a consequence to the search, various documents had been found and seized. Copies of the documents have been provided to the assessee on 11.7.2008. Notice u/s.153A came to be issued on the assessee on 6.5.2010 and was served on 7.5.2010. No returns of income were filed by the assessee in response to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the audit report u/s.44AB, he has violated the principles laid down in respect of provisions of Rule 46A. 4. At this point, ld AR submitted that the ld CIT(A) has called for two remand reports and after considering the remand reports, deleted the addition. 5. It was the submission by ld CIT DR that the ld CIT(A) had discarded the impugned document DB-06 on the ground that the said documents were impounded in the case of Debabrata Behera, who was also covered under search and survey in respect of related party thereto being M/s. Seerajuddin & Co. It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) took an erroneous stand that the said documents did not relate to the assessee. At this point, it was asked to ld CIT DR, as to how the documents seize....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the documents impounded in the case of Debabrata Behera. It was the submission that at the outset, such evidence cannot be used against the assessee without recording the satisfaction in the case of Debabrata Behera. It was the further submission that DB-06 did not contain the name of the assessee and was in no way connected to the assessee and even in the remand report, the Assessing Officer was unable to show how the said documents impounded as DB-06 was in any way having any link with the assessee. He vehemently supported the order of the ld CIT(A). It was his prayer that the assessment itself should be quashed. 8. We have considered the rival submissions. At the outset, it remains the admitted fact that DB-06 relates to the documents....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed in the cross objection only survive and our findings for the assessment year 2008-09 applies to the assessment year 2009-10. 11. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee stand allowed. ITA No.33 & 34/CTK/2014: Asst. year 2008-09 & 2009-10 12. These are appeals filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar confirming the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act for the assessment year 2008-09 & 2009-10. 13. It was submitted by ld AR that as the assessment for the assessment years 2008-09 & 2009-10 have been quashed, the penalty is liable to be deleted. 14. In reply, ld CIT DR submitted that the penalty is levied for noncompliance of statutory not....