TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 1472
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s common order. 2. The facts of the case are that there was search u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of Nimitya Group of Companies (of Sh. Sanjeev Mahajan) along with the alleged sub group known as Ninex Group (of Sh. Ram Mehar Garg i.e. the assessee and Sh. Jagminder Gupta). Additions have been made to the income of the assessee for all the years on the basis of a seized document annexure A-1 page 37 found from the possession of Sh. Sanjeev Mahajan of Nimitya Group whereas the assessee has been strongly contending all through out that as a result of search in the case of assessee, no incriminating document or material was found or seized relating to any undisclosed income whereas the AO has alleged that the above referred seized annexure contains details of payment made by Sh. Sanjeev Mahajan to Sh. Ram Mehar Garg against sale of property referred to as Hotel in City Mart project and the same was treated as unaccounted income in the hands of the assessee. As per the AO, there is reference to cash payment in the said annexure A- 1 to the extent of Rs. 20.10 crores pertaining to AY 2007-08 to 2009-10 as per details given here under: Assessment Year Returned Income ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e addition of Rs. 5.35 crores made by the Assessing Officer on account of unaccounted cash receipts by holding that the seized document does not belong to the assessee. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) has not correctly interpreted the provisions of section 153A r.w.s. 132(4A) and 292C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact that the CIT(A) himself has confirmed the addition of Rs. 2.35 crores out of Rs. 5.35 crores made in the hands of Sh. Sanjeev Mahajan on acount of unaccounted cash payments on the basis of same document thus validating the transaction recorded in the seized document and the stand taken by the AO. 4. The order of the CIT (A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal." C. Grounds of ITA No. 3953/D/2012: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 3.50 crores made by the Assessing Officer on account of una....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case the proceedings u/s 153A are illegal and without jurisdiction as there is no reference to any seized document found from the possession of the assessee or belonging to the assessee in the context of undisclosed income. In fact, in the assessment order itself, the AO has not made reference to any seized document found from the possession of the assessee for the purpose of any addition and whole basis of addition is in the context of seized annexure found from Sh. Sanjeev Mahajan during the course of search and AO has considered the said annexure in the case of assessee for the purpose of addition, without properly appreciating the nature of seized annexure or without proper investigation and examination of the concerned parties. It was also submitted that the AO has wrongly considered and applied the said seized annexure of Sh. Sanjeev Mahajan in the case of appellant even though no satisfaction has been recorded u/s 153C by the AO having jurisdiction over the case of Sh. Sanjeev Mahajan and it is evident that the above referred seized annexure has no relevance to the assessee and has been considered and applied merely for the purpose of addition in the case of assessee. If th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h the said annexure was considered in the case of the assessee. It was submitted that in fact the Assessing Officer himself had issued show-cause notice to M/s Nimitya Hotel & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. in the context of cash transactions on the basis of very same seized Annexure. In fact, the Assessing Officer had already initiated reassessment proceedings u/s 148 in the case of Nimitya Hotel & Resort (P) Ltd. It was submitted that i is very important to take note of the fact that in the show cause notice issued to M/s Ram Mehar Garg and M/s Nimitya Hotel & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, the assessing officer has specifically made reference to alleged cash payment to M/s Nimitya Hotel & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. 7. The Ld. DR placed reliance on the order of the AO. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The contention of the assessee is that the mandatory satisfaction note, which is to be recorded by the A.O. of the searched party during the course of the assessment proceedings of the search party for assuming jurisdiction u/s 153C of the Act by the A.O. of the assessee, was not recorded. The Ld. DR could not controvert th....