TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 95
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in passing the impugned assessment order u/s 153C and that too without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without recording mandatory 'satisfaction' in accordance with law and without complying/following with the other mandatory conditions/procedure as laid down us I53C in accordance with law. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the assumption of jurisdiction us 153C, is illegal, bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(AN has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs. 2.06.52.434/- by treating it as alleged income of assessee u/s 68 and taxing the same u/s 115BBE by recording incorrect facts and tidings and without following the principles of natural justice 4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CITA) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the action of ld. A0 in making addition of Rs. 12,39,146/- on account of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder after considering the submissions of the assessee and made addition on profit earned by the assessee from the trade of scrip of Yamini Investments Company Limited u/s 68 of the Act and further added 6% commission on the accommodation entry for such bogus claim on the issue of profit earned by the assessee on trade of the scrip and further made the addition of dummy salary paid to Garima Singh and Meena Singh. 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A)-23, New Delhi and the assessee also raised the jurisdictional issue before the ld. CIT (A). However, ld. CIT (A) dismissed issue of the non-application of mind by the AO while recording the satisfaction. 6. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us and raised the abovesaid issue before us. 7. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the AO has recorded satisfaction. However, the same does not show as to how these documents belong to the assessee. The same does not show as to how these documents are incriminating material and the same does not have any seized material for the year under consideration. Further he submitted that there is no incriminating material found for AY 2016....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee is a penny stock, therefore, he supported the findings of the lower authorities. 10. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. At the time of hearing, ld. AR made the submission with record to assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C only and we are restricting ourselves to the same at this stage. We observe that AO has recorded the satisfaction on 17.12.2021 wherein he had recorded as under :- "I have gone through the above mentioned seized documents and details carefully and after patently applying my mind on the same, I am satisfied that the documents seized belongs to M/s. Zenith Portfolio & Insurance Advisors Pvt. Ltd. Further, I am satisfied that the documents seized pertain to and the information contained therein relates to M/s. Zenith Portfolio & Insurance Advisors Pvt. Ltd. (PAN : AAACZ3752D). Considering the above mentioned observations and after patently applying my mind on the same, I am satisfied that these seized documents have a bearing on the determination of the total income of M/s. Zenith Portfolio & Insurance Advisors Pvt. Ltd. (PAN : AAACZ3752D) for the relevant assessment years referred to in subsection (1) sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'s income. To be more precise as to how, in satisfaction note AO concluded "During the search operation undisclosed income to the tune of Rs. 33 crores has been detected in the case of M/s Olympus Realtors (P) Ltd. resulting into concealment of income." 12. Respectfully following the above decision, we are inclined to come to a conclusion that satisfaction note recorded by the AO is vague and not as per the provisions of section 153C of the Act in order to assume the jurisdiction. Therefore, we are inclined to allow the grounds raised by the assessee i.e. 1, 2 and 6. 13. With regard to other grounds of appeal, we are keeping the same open at this stage. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA No.2221/Del/2024 is partly allowed. 15. With regard to issues raised in AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19, since the facts are exactly similar to the issues raised in AY 2016-17 also the satisfaction note was prepared commonly for all three years, our above findings in AY 2016- 17 are applicable mutatis mutandis in Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19 are partly allowed. 16. To sum up : all the app....