Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.27 seconds)Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii, Pune vs Sinhgad Technical Education Society on 16 October, 2015
10. In view of foregoing discussion, we are inclined to hold that when ,
undisputedly, seized documents do not belong to the assessee and no
incriminating documents/materials have been seized from other persons,
which are being assessed u/s.153C r.w.s. 143(3), then no sustainable
addition can be made in the hands of other persons in such assessment
year. Our view also gets a strong support from the decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sinhgad Technical Education Society (supra),
Page 6|8
IT(ss)A Nos.21 & 22/CTK/2019
Asse ssment Year s :2 00 9-2 010 & 201 0-1 1
decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of Pepsi Indian Holdings
Pvt Ltd and Nahid Finlease Pvt Ltd. (supra) ,decisions of Hon'ble Bombay
High Court in the case of R.M. Investment & Trading Co. Pvt Ltd. (supra),
and Continental Warehousing Corporation (supra)as vehemently relied by ld
Sr. counsel for the assessee. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that
the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) have no legs to
stand on the premises of relevant legal provisions of section 153C of the
Act and thus, same are not sustainable and, hence, we hold so.
Accordingly, additional Ground nos.4 to 6 of additional grounds are allowed.
Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Acit, Central Circle- 7, New Delhi on 3 December, 2018
10. In view of foregoing discussion, we are inclined to hold that when ,
undisputedly, seized documents do not belong to the assessee and no
incriminating documents/materials have been seized from other persons,
which are being assessed u/s.153C r.w.s. 143(3), then no sustainable
addition can be made in the hands of other persons in such assessment
year. Our view also gets a strong support from the decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sinhgad Technical Education Society (supra),
Page 6|8
IT(ss)A Nos.21 & 22/CTK/2019
Asse ssment Year s :2 00 9-2 010 & 201 0-1 1
decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of Pepsi Indian Holdings
Pvt Ltd and Nahid Finlease Pvt Ltd. (supra) ,decisions of Hon'ble Bombay
High Court in the case of R.M. Investment & Trading Co. Pvt Ltd. (supra),
and Continental Warehousing Corporation (supra)as vehemently relied by ld
Sr. counsel for the assessee. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that
the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) have no legs to
stand on the premises of relevant legal provisions of section 153C of the
Act and thus, same are not sustainable and, hence, we hold so.
Accordingly, additional Ground nos.4 to 6 of additional grounds are allowed.
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central ... vs M/S Arpit Land Pvt. Ltd. on 23 April, 2018
Com 299 (Delhi),
decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Arpit land pvt
Ltd., CIT Vs. M/s. Arpit Land (P) Ltd. 78 taxmann.com 300 (Bombay) and
Page 5|8
IT(ss)A Nos.21 & 22/CTK/2019
Asse ssment Year s :2 00 9-2 010 & 201 0-1 1
submitted that when seized documents do not belong to the assessee, then
addition cannot be held as sustainable.
National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 4 December, 1996
6. On careful consideration of the rival submissions, we perused the
application for admission of additional grounds. We are of the view that
additional Ground Nos.4 to 6 of appeal of the assessee are the grounds
which can be decided on the basis of material available on record without
Page 3|8
IT(ss)A Nos.21 & 22/CTK/2019
Asse ssment Year s :2 00 9-2 010 & 201 0-1 1
calling any extraneous materials or documents. Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of NTPC (supra) has categorically held that even the grounds
which have not been raised before the authorities below can be raised
before the Tribunal for the first time for which goes to the root of the
matter having the issue of legal contention of the assessee. Accordingly,
we admit the additional grounds raised by the assessee in Ground Nos.4 to
6 of appeal for adjudication.
Section 127 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 144 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax 2 vs M/S Continental Warehousing ... on 9 July, 2018
10. In view of foregoing discussion, we are inclined to hold that when ,
undisputedly, seized documents do not belong to the assessee and no
incriminating documents/materials have been seized from other persons,
which are being assessed u/s.153C r.w.s. 143(3), then no sustainable
addition can be made in the hands of other persons in such assessment
year. Our view also gets a strong support from the decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sinhgad Technical Education Society (supra),
Page 6|8
IT(ss)A Nos.21 & 22/CTK/2019
Asse ssment Year s :2 00 9-2 010 & 201 0-1 1
decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of Pepsi Indian Holdings
Pvt Ltd and Nahid Finlease Pvt Ltd. (supra) ,decisions of Hon'ble Bombay
High Court in the case of R.M. Investment & Trading Co. Pvt Ltd. (supra),
and Continental Warehousing Corporation (supra)as vehemently relied by ld
Sr. counsel for the assessee. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that
the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) have no legs to
stand on the premises of relevant legal provisions of section 153C of the
Act and thus, same are not sustainable and, hence, we hold so.
Accordingly, additional Ground nos.4 to 6 of additional grounds are allowed.
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M/S. R. M. Investment And Trading Co. ... on 7 January, 2019
10. In view of foregoing discussion, we are inclined to hold that when ,
undisputedly, seized documents do not belong to the assessee and no
incriminating documents/materials have been seized from other persons,
which are being assessed u/s.153C r.w.s. 143(3), then no sustainable
addition can be made in the hands of other persons in such assessment
year. Our view also gets a strong support from the decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sinhgad Technical Education Society (supra),
Page 6|8
IT(ss)A Nos.21 & 22/CTK/2019
Asse ssment Year s :2 00 9-2 010 & 201 0-1 1
decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of Pepsi Indian Holdings
Pvt Ltd and Nahid Finlease Pvt Ltd. (supra) ,decisions of Hon'ble Bombay
High Court in the case of R.M. Investment & Trading Co. Pvt Ltd. (supra),
and Continental Warehousing Corporation (supra)as vehemently relied by ld
Sr. counsel for the assessee. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that
the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) have no legs to
stand on the premises of relevant legal provisions of section 153C of the
Act and thus, same are not sustainable and, hence, we hold so.
Accordingly, additional Ground nos.4 to 6 of additional grounds are allowed.
The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Nahid Finlease Pvt. Ltd on 12 February, 2019
7. Ld Sr. counsel for the assessee appeared on behalf of the assessee
submitted that there is no nexus, linkage, connection or corroboration
between the seized materials/documents and the subject additions in the
impugned assessment order are not based on the seized materials and
hence, the impugned order is not maintainable in law. Thus, the same is
void abinitio and bad in law. The Sr Counsel vehemently pointed out that
the seized documents, as per satisfaction note, as referred therein, are
pages 67 to 93 and 94 to 97 of SMLO-05 do not belong to the assessee and
in no way related to the assessee. He further contended that the seized
documents as per annexure- A of the satisfaction note is IFCI factors
satisfaction letter for financial assistance to the assessee and money
received by the assessee from Shivom Minerals Ltd., during financial year
2011-12 as per SMLO 52 are not incriminating material/documents and the
same are not pertaining to financial year 208-09 relevant to assessment
Page 4|8
IT(ss)A Nos.21 & 22/CTK/2019
Asse ssment Year s :2 00 9-2 010 & 201 0-1 1
year 2009-2010 and succeeding financial year 2009-2010 pertaining to
assessment year 2010-2011. Therefore, even if the SMLO 52 is treated as
incriminating material/documents then also addition in the hands of the
assessee for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-2011 cannot be made on
the basis of such documents. Placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble
Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs Nahid Finlease Pvt Ltd. order
dated 13.5.2019 in ITA No.1483/2018, ld Sr. counsel submitted that the
impugned addition was not based on the satisfaction note prepared for the
purposes of initiation of proceedings against the assessee under section
153C of the Act. He also contended that the so called incriminating material
had to have some nexus with the addition ultimately made. That not
having been established by the Assessing Officer or by the CIT(A), the
addition should not have been made. Therefore, the sole addition of Rs.75
lakhs made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) for assessment year
2009-2010 and another addition of Rs.1,26,10,000/- made by the AO and
confirmed by the CIT(A) for assessment year 2010-2011 is not sustainable.
1