TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 823
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion with the seizure operations in the group cases of Sri Alakaram Satyanandam. On verification of the seized material and books of accounts and evidences, the Ld. AO found that the income represented in the form of asset which has escaped assessment is likely to amount to Rs. 50 lakhs or more for the AYs 2008-09 to 2011-12. Accordingly, the Ld. AO issued a notice U/ s. 153A of the Act on 7/ 12/ 2019. In response to the notice, the assessee filed its return of income for the AY 2008-09 on 24/ 12/ 2019 admitting the income of Rs. 6,410/ -. Thereafter, notices U/ s. 143(2) dated 27/ 12/ 2019 and U/ s. 142(1), dated 15/ 12/ 2019 along with a questionnaire were issued to the assessee. On verification of the submissions made by the assessee, the Ld AO noticed that the assessee company allotted 92,750 shares on 15/ 2/ 2008 having face value of Rs. 100/ -at a premium of Rs. 900/- to various companies as listed in the assessment order. Further, these 92,750 shares were transferred to the family members or concerns of Lahoti Family on 24/ 09/ 2009 at the face value. Subsequently, all the issued shares of the assessee company aggregating to 1,19,820 which includes 92,750 shares as detailed a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rious legal objections. The following legal issues were raised before the Ld. CIT(A). a. The addition made without reference to incriminating material found during the search is outside the scope of assessment U/ s. 153A of the Act [Ground No.3]. b. The impugned assessment does not qualify for invoking the fourth proviso to section 153A of the Act and therefore the assessment is void ab initio [Ground No.2]. c. The issue of notice in terms of the time limits revised as per Finance Act, 2017 is not permissible in respect of an assessment year for which the time limit for issue of notice U/ s. 153A expires much before the date on which the Finance Act, 2017 came into force (Point E of the Legal submissions made before the Ld. CIT(A)). 3. The Ld. CIT(A) granted relief by allowing ground no.3 of the appeal. The remaining legal issues were not specifically discussed and decided. Therefore, it is deemed that these legal grounds were decided against the petitioner. 4. As per the petitioner got full relief, it did not choose to file the further appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Visakhapatnam Bench. However, the Revenue preferred appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) before the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icating the issues on merits, these grounds raised may be taken up for adjudication. Countering the arguments of the Ld. AR, the Ld. DR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of E.N. Gopakumar vs. CIT (Central) reported in [2016] 75 taxmann.com 215 (Kerala). Further, the Ld. DR also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Canara Housing Development Co vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore reported in [2014] 49 taxmann.com 98 (Karnataka). The Ld. DR vehemently submitted that there are no merits in the order of the Ld. CIT (A). Countering the arguments of the Ld. DR, the Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd in Civil Appeal No. 6580 of 2021, dated 24/ 04/ 2023. The Ld. AR also placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of Chennai in ITA No. 56/ Chny/ 2022 and others, dated 03/ 08/ 2022 in the case of ACIT vs. Shri V. Durai and others. The Ld. AR also further heavily relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of the Chennai in the case of A.R. Saifulla vs. ACIT, Cen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ix assessment years but not later than ten assessment years from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made." From the bare reading of the above provisions we find that the Statute has prescribed a different yardstick for the computation of six years in the case of search assessments for the purpose of section 153A(1)(b) and a different yardstick in the computation of Ten years, for the purpose of fourth proviso. Accordingly, we find that the Ld. AO has jurisdiction upto the AY 2009-10 in the instant case. From the reliance placed by the Ld. AR in the case of A.R. Saifulla vs. ACIT (supra) we find it relevant to extract the relevant paragraphs from the said order as under: "8.In fact, I am prepared to sail along with the learned standing counsel and hold that if there is any ambiguity while construing a provision meant for rooting out or investigating evasion of tax, it must be resolved in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Jurisprudentially speaking, the very object of law is to lay down norms for general behavior and prescribe sanction to ensure their compliance. Unless sanction is strictly enf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....20 has to be excluded. This is because, the statute talks of the six years preceding the search assessment year. But, while computing the ten assessment years, the starting point has to be the end of the search assessment year. In other words, search assessment year has to be including in the latter case. It is not for me to fathom the wisdom of the parliament. I cannot assume that the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2017 intended to bring in four more years over and above the six years already provided within https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ the scope of the provision. When the law has prescribed a particular length, it is not for the court to stretch it. Plasticity is the new mantra in neuroscience, thanks to the teachings of Norman Doidge. It implies that contrary to settled wisdom, even brain structure can be changed. But not so when it comes to a provision in a taxing statute that is free of ambiguity. Such a provision cannot be elastically construed. 11. One other contention urged by the standing counsel has to be dealt with. It is pointed out that the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction at the notice stage. Since the petitioner has demonstrated that the s....