DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. MUSKAN MEDICAL CENTRE PVT. LTD., GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2277/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2024AY 2015-16Bench: us, we could not find any instance of issue of warrant of authorization u/s 132 in the name of the assessee. The panchanama drawn in the name of the other persons at different name at different premises cannot be considered as the panchnama prepared in connection with the issue of the warrant of authorization. In the absence of any other evidences brought before us, we decline to interfere with the order of the Id. CIT(A) annulling the assessment made u/s 153A of the Act in the absence of w3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that there was no warrant of authorization under Section 132 issued in the name of the assessee, Muskan Medical Centre Pvt. Ltd. It clarified that panchnamas for other entities could not justify the assessment under Section 153A for the assessee. The assessment made under Section 153A was therefore annulled due to the absence of a valid warrant of authorization, with liberty granted to the Revenue for future recourse if proof emerges.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which annulled assessment proceedings under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Muskan Medical Centre Pvt. Ltd. The CIT(A) found that no warrant under Section 132 was issued in the assessee's name, while the Revenue contended that a search was conducted and the warrant covered the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether assessment proceedings initiated under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are valid in the absence of a search warrant under Section 132 issued specifically in the assessee's name.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 133A,Section 132A,Section 153A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI

Before: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Adv. &
Hearing: 16.05.2024Pronounced: 24.05.2024

ORDER

Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of ld. CIT(A)-3, Noida dated 01.06.2023.

2.

Following grounds have been raised by the Revenue:

“1. On facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by holding that search proceedings have been conducted on the appellant i.e. Muskan Medical Centre Pvt. Ltd. as no warrant u/s 132 of Income Tax Act, 1961 has been issued in case of appellant, without appreciating the fact that as per the panchnama, it is clearly established that the warrant of search has been issued in the name of M/s Muskan Medical Centre Pvt. Ltd. (M/s Neo Hospital). Therefore, the order of Ld. CIT(A) that assessment proceedings should not have been initiated under section 153A of the Act, is based on the factually erroneous premise and there is no legal infirmity in initiating assessment proceedings under section 153A of the Act.

Muskan Medical Centre Pvt. Ltd. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the additions of Rs.1,69,94,639/- made by Assessing Officer solely on technical grounds without appreciating the fact that the assessment orders were correctly passed u/s 153A of Income Tax Act, 1961 in A.Υ. 2014-15 to 2018-19 as search proceedings had been conducted u/s 132 of IT Act in case of the appellant M/s Muskan Centre Pvt. Ltd.”

3.

Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record.

4.

At the outset, the ld. AR relying on the order of the ld. CIT(A) submitted that a survey u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been conducted on the assessee and no warrant u/s 132 of the Act or no requisition was made u/s 132A of the Act.

5.

Having gone through the record before us, we could not find any instance of issue of warrant of authorization u/s 132 in the name of the assessee. The panchanama drawn in the name of the other persons at different name at different premises cannot be considered as the panchnama prepared in connection with the issue of the warrant of authorization. In the absence of any other evidences brought before us, we decline to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) annulling the assessment made u/s 153A of the Act in the absence of warrant of authorization.

6.

At this juncture, the ld. CIT DR pleaded that the revenue may be given liberty to approach the Tribunal in case it is proved that the warrant of authorization has been indeed issued in the name of the assessee. The prayer of the ld. DR acceded to.

Muskan Medical Centre Pvt. Ltd. 7. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 24/05/2024.

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →