TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1233
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sing Pvt. Ltd. were found and seized. Based on the seized paper, the case of the appellant company was initiated u/s 153C of the Act by issuance of notice u/s 153C on 08.10.2013. The assessment proceedings were completed vide order u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on 28.03.2014 by making a total addition of Rs. 3,50,00,000/-. In the appeal, filed by the assessee company before the Ld. CIT(A) against the order of the Ld. Assessing officer ('AO') u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 28.03.2014, vide order dated 01.12.2014, ld. CIT(A) held the order of the Ld. AO as invalid due to the defect in assumption of jurisdiction. The basis of the addition was that during the course of search, a note pad from the table of Shri Naveen Chaudhary, CFO, M/s. U.K. Paints India Pvt. Ltd. was seized forming part of Annexure A-15. From the perusal of the said note pad page no. 3 and scanned copy thereof mentioned at page no. 2 of the assessment order shows that a property no. 58, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi was purchased by three persons to create a new company M/s. Advantage Housing Pvt. Ltd. in which all the three persons were having equal shares. The sale deed has been executed as per Ld. AO for Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....recorded. It is therefore, observed and concluded that the assessee company intentionally has not recorded the payment of Rs. 3.5 crore made in cash in its book of account as the payment has been made from the undisclosed sources of income of the assessee company. Accordingly, the sum of Rs. 3.5 crore was added by the AO to the income of the assessee as undisclosed income u/s 69C of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the said addition, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A),who set aside the assessment order and deleted the addition so made, observing that the action taken by Ld. AO u/s 147 of the Act was not valid in law because the reason to believe were solely based on the material found during the course of search that took placed on 16 September, 2011 on the Dhingra group. It is not the case of the AO that the alleged escapement is detected based on some material not found during the course of search. It was further observed that where the incriminating material was found during the course of search, the assessment has to be framed in accordance with the provisions of section 153A and 153C of the Act. While framing the assessment, the AO can take into account the other ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Id. CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the judgement passed by the jurisdictional High Court i.c. High Court of Delhi in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -7, Delhi Vs Naveen Kumar Gupta in ITA No. 401/2022?" 5. On summarizing the ground, we have noticed that the Revenue has challenged the impugned order primarily on the ground that the deletion of the addition of Rs. 3.5 crore was done contrary to the judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the Case of PCIT vs. Maharaja Education Trust ITA No. 721/2023, dated 03.07.2024. Secondly, the reopening has been declared invalid while ignoring the case of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of PCIT vs. Navin Kumar Gupta, ITA No. 401/2025 order dated 20.11.2024. 6. We have heard the ld. AR for the Respondent/ assessee and Ld. DR for the Appellant/ Revenue and examined the record. 7. Ground No. 2 is general ground, hence needs no adjudication and accordingly, dismissed. The ground no. 1 has been raised on the basis of ignoring judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Maharaji Education Trust, ITA No. 721/2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd disposed of." 8. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Maharaji Education Trust vs. PCIT, dated 8th April, 2025,referred to above, it is not made clear by the Revenue whether the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court dated 03.07.2024 has been reviewed or has attained finality. In case the judgment has been reviewed, in that situation, the same cannot be made basis or ground for challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A). In these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. 9. Ground No. 3 and 4: Both the grounds are taken up together as they are inter-connected. During the course of arguments as well as in the written submissions, Ld. AR has argued that the assumption of Jurisdiction u/s 147 and 148 of the Act by the Ld. AO after the initiating of the proceeding u/s 153C of the Act which were set aside by the Ld. CIT(A) and the order of the ld. CIT(A) was confirmed by the Jurisdictional ITAT in ITA No. 1451/Del/2015, vide order dated 27.02.2020 holding that the reopening of the assessment u/s 148 of the Act by issuing u/s 147 of the Act is bad in law as it woul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Act, that is, if the AO exercises its jurisdiction to initiate the machinery provisions of Section 153C of the Act to make an assessment/reassessment of the assessee's income for the stipulated period. The non obstante provisions do no come into play, if the AO does not take recourse to provision of Section 153C of the Act. 59. The non obstante clause as used in Section 153C of the Act cannot be read to completely exclude the provisions of Sections 143 or 147 of the Act in cases where the assessee's income is sought to be assessed inter alia on the basis of the information found during search proceedings. However, it will not be open for the AO to take recourse to Section 147 of the Act, where the AO has taken steps under Section 153C of the Act. Thus, if the conditions for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Act are satisfied and the AO issues a notice as required under Section 153C of the Act, any reassessment under Section 147 of the Act would obviously, be impermissible. This is because the Act does not contemplate parallel assessment proceedings. Where the AO is satisfied that the assets, material and document....