AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 599
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 2012-13 & 2013-14. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue in Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 read as under :- "Assessment Year 2012-13 1. That the DCIT, Central Circle, Noida has illegally assumed jurisdiction to initiate proceedings u/s 153C. 2. That the assessment proceedings are liable to be quashed because the notice u/s 153C was not served upon the assessee. 3. That the assessment proceedings are liable to be quashed because the satisfaction note was not supplied to the assessee. 4. That the assessment proceedings are liable to be quashed because the DCIT, Central Circle, Noida had not established that the assessing officer of the searched party had recorded his satisfaction to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee. 3. That the assessment proceedings are liable to be quashed because the satisfaction note was not supplied to the assessee. 4. That the assessment proceedings are liable to be quashed because the DCIT, Central Circle, Noida had not established that the assessing officer of the searched party had recorded his satisfaction to the effect that the seized document (on the basis of which proceedings u/s 153C were Initiated In the case of the assessee) did not belong to the searched party, but belonged to the assessee. 5. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the DCIT, Central Circle, Noida has erred in making addition of Rs. 6,15,00,000/- u/s 68, on account of Share Capital firstly because there w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds. 3. That in any case and in any view of the matter, satisfaction recorded u/s 153C is not in accordance with law and hence jurisdiction assumed is bad in law. 4. That in any case and in any view of the matter, addition made in the impugned order is beyond jurisdiction and illegal, also for the reason that such order could not have been made since no incriminating material has been found as a result of search. 5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have quashed the impugned assessment order passed by Ld. AO without there being requisite approval ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctions. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We refer to the jurisdictional issue first. 7. The submissions of the ld. Counsel for the assessee in this regard read as under :- "The only effective issue in present cross objection is against the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C. Similar issue is involved in petition under Rule-27 filed by the respondent assessee. In this case, search action u/s 132 was conducted on 09.10.2013 at the premises of one M/s Shubh Kamana Buildtech P. Ltd. Group of cases and 'satisfaction note' u/s 153C was issued on 09.09.2014 and thereafter, addition of Rs. 2,05,00,000/- was made in the assessment Order on account of share application money received from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....risdiction u/s 153C was not satisfied as held in the following judicial decisions: * Search and seizure -- Assessment under s. 153 C--Scope--- Where nothing incriminating is found in the course of search relating to any assessment years, the assessments for such years cannot be disturbed---Items of regular assessment cannot be added back in the proceedings under s. 153C when no incriminating documents were found in respect of the disallowed amounts in the search proceedings.----LMJ International Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT, 119 TTJ 214 (Kol) * Incriminating material vis-a-vis relevant assessment years-Cheque book relating to assessee found during the search operation which is duly recorded in the assessee's books of account and refle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....annot be invoked-Order of Appellate Tribunal deleting disallowances of earlier disclosed expenditure proper +Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 132,1 32A 133A, 153A 1 53C-CIT v. Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd. 388 ITR 574 (CAL) * Assessment under s. 153C-Validity vis-a-vis absence of incriminating- No evidence was found during the course of search that any money (cash credit) belongs to the assessee-company or to prove that assessee had received any accommodation entry or that cash was given by assessee- company to take any loan or credits- Condition precedent for issuing notice under s. 153C was not satisfied, hence consequent assessment and addition made under s. 68 were liable to be quashed-Nova Iron & Steel Ltd. vs. DCIT, 190 TTJ 499 (Del) ....