Case Law Details
ACIT Vs Realtech Construction Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)
The issue under consideration is whether to acquire jurisdiction under section 153C is it require that the seized documents must be incriminating and must relate to the assessment year whose assessment were sought to be reopened?
ITAT states that from a bare perusal of the satisfaction note, it could be seen that the seized documents were mainly MOU’s between promoters of Realtech group, namely, Y, P and R along with the some working of the Realtech Group. There was no reference in the assessment order or in the seized documents that these were in the nature of incriminating documents from where inference could be drawn that there was any undisclosed income or any other income which had escaped assessment. To acquire jurisdiction under section 153C, the seized documents must be incriminating and must relate to the assessment year whose assessment were sought to be reopened. Apart from that, assessee had disclosed a sum of Rs. 24.50 crores as additional income during survey owing to such real estate business of the assessee, and therefore, if at all there was any element of cash payment or cash income and the source of income of the business was the same and no further evidence had been found or investigated during the assessment proceedings, then no addition could be made again in this assessment year. Thus, the entire addition was held to be beyond the scope of section 153C and the same was to be deleted.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue against impugned order dated 22.09.2016, passed by ld. CIT (Appeals)-XXIX, New Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.153C/143(3) for the Assessment Year 2011-12. In the grounds of appeal, the Revenue has challenged the deletion of addition of Rs.13,90,26,749/-.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
