DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Wadsons (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITSSA 5/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9474 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANUSHA KHURANA
• Keywords: Business income

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH I DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL I.T(SS)A.NO. 5(DEL)/2010 BLOCK PERIOD: 1.4.1990 TO 03.8.2000 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME WADSONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD., TAX, CIRCLE 18(1), NEW DELHI. VS. C-44, JUNGPURA EXTN., NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SMT. ANUSHA KHURANA, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY: NONE ORDER PER K.G. BANSAL ; AM THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN TWO GROUNDS IN THE APPEAL , WHICH READS AS UNDER:- (I) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT FR AMED U/S 158BD ON THE GROUND THAT NO SATISFACTION AS R ECORDED IN THE CASE OF SEARCHED PARTY IGNORING THE FACT THE SATISFACTION WAS IMPLIED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF IN THE CASE OF SEARCHED PARTY M/S FRIENDS PORT FOLIO PVT. LTD. IN WHOSE CASE THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS WITH THE STIPULATION THAT ADD ITIONS ON SUBSTANTIATE BASIS SHALL BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF BENEFICIARIES. (II) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT ON THE IT(SS)A NO. 5(DEL)/2010 2 GROUND THAT THE NOTICE U/S 158BD WAS ISSUED AFTER 22 MONTHS OF PASSING OF ORDER U/S 158BC IN THE C ASE OF SEARCHED PARTY IGNORING THE FACT THAT THERE IS NOT SUCH LIMITATION CONTAINED U/S 158BD OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, TREATING THE SURPLUS AMOUNTING TO RS. 58,71,144 /- ON SALE OF UNITS OF MUTUAL FUND AS CAPITAL GAIN INSTEA D OF BUSINESS RECEIPTS 2. WHILE NONE ATTENDED BEFORE US ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON 22.03.2010, BEING THE DATE OF HEARING, MRS. ANUS HKA KHURANA, LD. SR. DR EXPLAINED THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. IN RE GARD TO GROUND NO. (II), IT WAS STATED THAT THE STATUTE DOES NOT PROVIDE A NY LIMITATION FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 158BD. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(APPEA LS) ERRED IN QUASHING THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER THE AFORESAID PROVISION AFT ER 22 MONTHS OF THE PASSING OF THE ORDER U/S 158BC IN THE CASE OF T HE SEARCHED PERSON. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AN D SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE STANDS COVERE D BY THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF DELHI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MA NOJ AGGARWAL VS. DY. CIT, (2008) 113 ITD 377, IN WHICH IT WAS HELD TH AT THE TIME LIMIT SET OUT IN SECTION 158BE APPLIES FOR INVOKING PROVISIO N OF SECTION 158BD. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE LEGISLATURE DID NOT FEEL IT NECESSARY TO SPECIFY A SEPARATE TIME LIMIT AS PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158B C AND 158BD ARE INTERTWINED, INTERLACED AND INTERLINKED. BEING A DECISION OF SPECIAL IT(SS)A NO. 5(DEL)/2010 3 BENCH, IT HAS A BINDING FORCE ON THE DIVISION B ENCH. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THIS DECISION, IT IS HELD THAT THE NOTI CE U/S 158BD WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION. THUS, THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 3.1 IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FINDING, IT IS NOT NE CESSARY FOR US TO DECIDE GROUND NO. (I). 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 .03.2010 SOON AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE HEARING. (I.P.BANSAL) (K.G.BANSAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF ORDER: 22.03.2010. SP SATIA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. WADSONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI. 2. DY. CIT, CIRCLE-18(1), NEW DELHI. 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT, NEW DELHI. 5. DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI. ASSISTANT REGISTRA R.