Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida V. Muskan Medical Centre Pvt. Ltd., Gautam Buddha Nagar

ITA 2277/DEL/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2223 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-05-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 15-05-2024
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 10-08-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DISHANT SETHI
• Section: 132; 133A; 153A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member, Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Judicial Member ITA No. 2277/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year: 2015-16 DCIT, Noida Vs Muskan Medical Centre Pvt. Ltd., D-170A, Sector-50, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201301 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAICM0482D Assessee by : Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. & Sh. Dishant Sethi, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 16.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 24.05.2024 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: 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. ITA No. 2277/Del/2023 Muskan Medical Centre Pvt. Ltd. 2 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. ITA No. 2277/Del/2023 Muskan Medical Centre Pvt. Ltd. 3 7. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 24/05/2024. Sd/- Sd/- (Sudhir Kumar) (Dr. B. R. R. Kumar) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 24/05/2024 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR