ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. PREETHA PRIYADHARSHINI LAM , SECUNDERABAD

At the outset, we notice that these twin Revenue’s appeals suffer from delay of 09 days as attributable to the reasons mentioned in the petition/affidavit and on account of no objection from assessee’s side. This delay stands condoned therefore.

It next emerges that the Revenue’s identical sole substantive ground in both these appeals challenges correctness of the CIT(A)’s action quashing the impugned Section 153C assessment for want of a valid satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer(s) concerned.

There is hardly any dispute between the parties that the search in both the instant cases is indeed a common one dt.11-03-2010 carried out in case of M/s.MBS Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. This followed the corresponding satisfaction(s) recorded by the assessees’ respective assessing authority(ies) leading to initiation of Section 153C proceedings on 31-10-2011. A common perusal of the corresponding satisfaction notes reproduced in the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion(s) at pages 7 and 11, appeal-wise; respectively suggests that the Assessing Officer had found the alleged incriminating material to be only “relating to” the assessees than “belonging” to them as required at that point of time. There is further no quarrel that the legislature incorporated the corresponding statutory expression(s) “pertains or pertain to” and “relates to” by the Finance Act, 2015 with prospective effect from 01-06-2015 only. It is noticed in this clinching factual backdrop that the CIT(A) has quashed the impugned assessment. This tribunal’s co-ordinate bench involving the very search and Revenue’s

These twin Revenue’s appeals are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.