AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 465
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. 'FAA') in Appeal No. 44/CIT(A)(C)/GGN/2014-15 arising out of the appeal before it against the order dated 24.03.2014 passed u/s 153B(1)(b) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the DCIT, Central Circle-I, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO). The assessee has also filed the Cross Objections. 2. Heard and perused the records. On hearing both the sides it can be observed that assessee by way of cross objections and taking shelter to the Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules has challenged the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153A of the Act and that if at all the assessment was to be done same should have been u/s 153C of the Act. 3. Consid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tuted 'subject-matter of an appeal' and held as follows:-- 21. Therefore, arguably Rule 27 has a limited sphere of operation, but this cannot be whittled or narrowed down to the extent, the Revenue would like us to hold. We cannot read Rule 27 in a restrictive manner to hold that the said provision can only be invoked to support the order in appeal and while doing so, the subject matter of the appeal before the ITAT should be confined only to the extent of the grounds urged by the Appellant. To read Rule 27 in this manner would render the said rule redundant as the respondent before the Tribunal would, even otherwise be entitled to oppose the appeal and raise submissions in answer to the grounds raised in the appeal that ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of Income Tax (Central) Gurgaon circle on 29.08.2013. 4.1 The assessee company got incorporated during FY 2010-11. The company is engaged in the business of real-estate. The main project of the company is the Provence Estate" to develop a Residential Group Housing Society at Gwal Pahari. In accordance with the provisions of section 153A of the Act a notice dated 14.08.2013 u/s 142(1) was issued and served upon the assessee, requiring him to file this return of income in respect of assessment year 2012-13. In response to the said notice, the assessee company vide letter dated 22.09.2013 filed copy of its return of income already e-filed on 30.09.2012 returning a total loss of Rs 3,35,71,598/-. Notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) alo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Income Tax Act, 1961 had not been conducted, then the assessee would never had declared amount of Rs. 3.02 cr. as undisclosed income of the assessee for the year under consideration. 3. That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground(s) of appeal either before or at the time hearing of the appeal." 4.3 The grounds of Cross Objection of the assessee read as under:- "1. The impugned assessment order passed u/s 153B(1)(b) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on 24/03/2014 is void ab initio and bad in law because: (i) The assessee was never searched as no panchnama was ever drawn in its name in any premises. (ii) T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the time of hearing." 5. The arguments were initially heard on the cross objections. The ld. AR has primarily submitted that admittedly, the incriminating evidence was not found in the possession of the assessee. Therefore, assessment should have been completed u/s 153C of the Act. After going through the Panchnama prepared at the time of search, copy of which is made available at page 153 of the PB, it is evident that the search was not conducted at the premises of the assessee. The alleged incriminating material relied by the ld. AO, establishes that it was received by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer of the present assessee on 29.08.2013. The search year happens to be 2014-2015. Thus in these circumstances the present assessmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uthoritatively settled by virtue of the decisions of this Court in SSP Aviation Ltd v. Dy.CIT (2012) 346 ITR 177 ( Delhi)( HC) and CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd 2015 SCC Online Del 13085 as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v Jasjit Singh 2023 SCC Online SC1265. The aforesaid legal position also stood reiterated by the Supreme Court in ITO v. Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia 2023 SCC Online SC. 370. The submission of the revenue, therefore, that the block periods would have to be reckoned with reference to the date of search can neither be countenanced nor accepted. The reckoning of the six AYs' would require one to firstly identify the FY in which the search was undertaken and which would lead to the ascertainment of the AY....