Case Law Details
Pr. CIT Vs Dreamcity Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court)
In the present case, the Revenue is seeking to rely on three documents to justify the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153 C of the Act against the Assessee. Two of them, viz., the licence issued to the Assessee by the DTCP and the letter issued by the DTCP permitting it to transfer such licence, have no relevance for the purposes of determining escapement of income of the Assessee for the AYs in question. Consequently, even if those two documents can be said to ‘belong‘ to the Assessee they are not documents on the basis of which jurisdiction can be assumed by the AO under Section 153C of the Act.
As far as the third document, being Annexure A to the statement of Mr. D. N. Taneja, is concerned that was not a document that ‘belonged‘ to the Assessee. Admittedly, this was a statement made by Mr. Taneja during the course of the search and survey proceedings. While it contained information that ‘related‘ to the Assessee, by no stretch of imagination could it be said to a document that ‘belonged‘ to the Assessee. Therefore, the jurisdictional requirement of Section 153C of the Act, as it stood at the relevant time, was not met in the present case.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
1. This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 30th January, 2017 passed by the ITAT in ITA No.4766/Del/2009 for the Assessment Year (‘AY‘) 2005-06.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
