TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 1183
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed by the Ld. Assessing Officer, Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Noida dated 31.03.2016 u/s. 144 are bad in law, suffer from serious defects and are against the facts of the case. 2. That the Assessing Officer was wrong to make an addition of Rs. 20,OO,OO,OOO/- and the CIT(A) was wrong to have decided the appeal before her without appreciation of facts and records. 3. That the CIT(A) has passed the appellate orders without considering the objections, submissions raised by the appellant ignoring the evidences filed at the time of hearing. 4. That the assessment proceedings and the orders passed are defective and deserves to be quashed. 5. That none of the notices, assessment order or demand notice u/s. 156 of the Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....did not press Ground Nos. 8 and 9 and, therefore, dismissed as not pressed. 5. At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee addressed the Bench Ground Nos. 7 and 10. Therefore, we heard the representatives on the grounds argued by the ld. counsel for the assessee. Case records carefully perused and relevant documentary evidences brought on record duly considered in light of Rule 18(6) of the ITAT Rules. 6. Vide Ground Nos. 7 and 10, the assessee has challenged the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C of the Act claiming that satisfaction note for initiation of proceedings u/s 153C of the Income tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] in itself is against the facts and bad in law. 7. Satisfaction note is dated 16.02.2016 and reads as un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act. 11. Pertinent facts to be considered for adjudication are that search was conducted on 09.10.2013 and satisfaction note was drawn on 16.02.2016 and, that too, without having any access to the assessment record of the assessee. Secondly, and most importantly, the persons who were searched, i.e., Shri Mukesh Khurana and Smt. Babita Khurana from whose premises alleged incriminating documents were found were never examined by the Revenue authorities. 12. While assuming jurisdiction and without even looking into the records, the Assessing Officer assumed that the assessee has paid Rs. 20 crores outside its books of account. In fact, in the Memorandum of Understanding itself, it is mentioned that Rs. 20 crores have been paid in cash and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the assessing officer of the searched person to be satisfied that the assets or documents seized do not belong to the searched person but to the assessee sought to be assessed under Section 153C of the Act. Once the assessing officer of the searched person is so satisfied, he is required to transfer the assets or documents, which he believes belongs to the assessee, to the assessing officer having jurisdiction over that assessee. The assessing officer of the assessee on receipt of such asset or document seized would have jurisdiction to commence proceedings under Section 153C of the Act. The assessing officer has, thereafter, to apply his mind as to whether the assets and documents received have a bearing on the determination of the tot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not be considered as a legally enforceable document. 17. Interestingly, the document was found from the premises of Shri Mukesh Khurana and Shri Mukesh Khurana himself has not signed that document. There is mere mention of Rs. 20 crores in cash and PDC but neither date is mentioned nor any dates of post dated cheques have been mentioned. Such error goes on to show that the Assessing Officer has recorded the satisfaction in haste and without application of mind for the year under consideration. 18. In our considered opinion, mere seizure of illegal unauthorized MOU found from the premises of third party whose statement was never recorded by the INV Wing nor by the Assessing Officer and reference to the entries in the MOU does not reflect t....