Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu
O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. These two Revenue’s appeals involving as many assessees M/s. Summit Communications Pvt Ltd and Smt.Neetu Gupta, for A.Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11 arise from the CIT(A)-11, Hyderabad’s separate orders, both dt.31.08.2021 passed in case Nos.10094 and 10183/2019-20, respectively; involving proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153C of the Act. Heard both the parties. Case files perused.
We come to the Revenue’s identical sole substantive grievance raised in both these appeals that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in quashing the impugned assessments framed u/s 153C of the Act for want of a valid satisfaction note.
There is hardly any dispute between the parties that both these appeals involving a common search dt.11.03.2010 carried out by the department in case of M/s. MBS Jewellers Private Limited group. We find from a perusal of the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion i.e., page 33 in former and page 21 of the latter one; respectively, that the corresponding assessing authority (ies) had recorded their twin satisfactions pertaining to both these parties that the alleged incriminating material (of the specified category) “relates to” M/s. Summit Communications Pvt Ltd and Smt. Neetu Gupta; as the case may be. We make it clear that the clinching statutory expressions “pertains to” or “relates to” came to be inserted vide Finance Act 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015 with prospective effect only whereas the foregoing satisfactions had been recorded very well before the said amendment i.e. dt.11.11.2011. We thus hold that the statutory expression “belongs to” was only applicable upto 01.06.2015 and therefore, the impugned assessments had been rightly quashed in the CIT(A)’s order under challenge. 4. Learned CIT-DR at this stage sought to buttress the Revenue point that all these three expressions “belongs to”, “pertains to” and “relates to”; as the case may be, carry the same meaning only and therefore, we opt to treat all three of them at par qua the alleged incriminating material only. We find no substance in the Revenue’s instant arguments since all the three foregoing connotations carry different connotations as per the principle of stricter interpretation in light of case law Commissioner of Customs Vs. Dilip Kumar (2018) 9 SCC 1 (FB) (SC). These Revenue’s twin appeals as well as its arguments supporting impugned satisfaction note(s) fail accordingly. 5. These two Revenue’s appeals are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in respective case files. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 9th December, 2021.