TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 60
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., a search action U/s. 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of the assessee at the registered office of the assessee along with its group concerns of M/s. Vijayanagar Biotech Pvt Ltd. Consequent to the search action U/s. 132, this case was centralized with Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam vide order of the Pr. CIT-1, Visakhapatnam U/s. 127 of the Act in F.No. Pr. CIT/1/VSP/127/2020-21, dated 4/11/2020. The Ld. AO issued a notice U/s. 153A of the Act on 25/2/2021 calling for the return of income. As there was no response, another notice U/s. 142(1) was issued calling for the information along with the detailed questionnaire. In response to the notice U/s. 142(1), the assessee partly submitted the information as required by the Ld. AO on 11/9/2021. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed that it has filed its return of income on 26/8/2021 at the e-filing portal but the Ld. AO observed that the assessee has not verified the return electronically / physically. During the course of search at the registered premises of the assessee, the Ld. AO noticed that certain incriminating material was found and seized vide Annexure-A/VBPL/OFFICE/02 regarding the sale of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons before the Ld. CIT(A) regarding the additions made by the Ld. AO. Considering the written submissions made by the assessee's Representative, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: (i) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee company had filed the return of income on 26/8/2021 to the notice u/s. 153A issued on 25/2/2021 and the same was e-verified on 19/9/2021 ie a few days before the due date for finalization of search assessment, during which period the minimum time of 15 days required for the assessee to comply to a notice U/s. 143(2) was not available. (ii) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee company had never furnished any such alleged agreement between the parties in the month of March, 2016 for verification with regard to the addition made U/s. 50C of Rs. 37,53,540/- during the course of assessment proceedings and this fact was clearly mentioned in para 6.7 of the assessment order. Accordingly, there is a clear infringement of Rule 46A as the AO has not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent / date of advance received by the assessee during March, 2016 wherein the value as per section 50C stood at Rs. 1,87,62,450/- as admitted by the assessee while filing the return of income. He therefore pleaded that the order of the Ld. CIT (A) be upheld. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record as well as the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. We find that the Ld. AO has relied on the date of registration of the sale deed for making the addition U/s. 50C of the Act while framing the assessment U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act. The Ld. AO has merely relied on the loose sheets seized during the search operations. The Ld. AO also failed to record any corroborative evidences in his findings with respect to the additions made by him. The fact that the advance received by the assessee is mentioned in the sale deed entered into by the assessee was ignored by the Ld. AO. The Ld. AO has merely relied on the date of registration of sale deed while making the addition U/s. 50C of the Act which was registered during December, 2016 and January, 2017. Since the agreement to sell has been entered into as early as March 2016, and the consideration ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at it is a dumb document and the addition cannot be made on such incomplete document. The Ld.AR also referred to the sworn in statement by Vivekananda Raju who has stated that the loose sheets was not either written by him or any one of the employees of the assessee-company. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be upheld. 9. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find that the loose sheets, extracted as screen shot in the Ld. AO's order, are undated and no details like date of payment or to whom the amount was paid is not mentioned in the loose sheets. Further, the sale deeds executed by the assessee clearly mentions the consideration received and admitted by the assessee while filing the return of income. The Ld.CIT(A) in para 7.2 of his order relied on the case of Sri Badam Bhogalinga Swamy and others of the jurisdictional Bench of the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 6 to 10/Viz/2021. We reproduce herein below the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) on this ground: "7.2 From the loose sheet as was submitted by the counsel it cannot be ascertained as to the details of payments and date of payment and to whom the amount was paid as was....