Assessee challenges assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
 “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
(Conducted through Virtual Court)
BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT
AND
SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

IT(SS)A No.145 and 146/Ahd/2018
Asstt.Year : 2012-13 and 2013-14
AND
ITA No.1206/Ahd/2018
Asstt.Year : 2014-15

SBG Infrastructure LLP.,
4-1, Govardhan Apartment
Nr. Bank of Baroda, Karelibaug
Vadodara 390 023.
PAN : ABDFS 2792 K

Vs.

DCIT, Cent.Cir.2
Baroda.

ITA No.1286/Ahd/2018
Asstt.Year : 2014-15

JCIT (OSD), Cent.Cir.2
Baroda. 
(Applicant) 

Vs.

SBG Infrastructure LLP.,
4-1, Govardhan Apartment
Nr. Bank of Baroda, Karelibaug
Vadodara 390 023.
(Responent)

Assessee by : Shri U.S. Bhati, with
Shri Abhimanyu Singh Bhati,
ARs

Revenue by : Shri O.P. Sharma, CIT-DR

Date of Hearing : 19/05/2021
Date of Pronouncement: 13/07/2021

O R D E R

PER RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT:

Present four appeals are directed against common order of the ld.CIT(A)-12, Ahmedabad dated 13.3.2018 passed for the Asstt.Year 2012-13 to 2014-15. Out of the above four appeals, ITA No.1286/Ahd/2018 is a cross appeal at the instance of the Revenue in the Asstt.Year 2014-15; rest three appeals are by the assessee. Since common issues are involved, therefore, we heard all these appeals together and deem it appropriate to adjudicate them by this common order.

2. First we take IT(SS)A.No.145 and 146/Ahd/2018 i.e. appeals of the assessee for the Asstt.Year 2012-13 and 2013-14. In both these years, the assessee has revised its grounds of appeal and the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee read as under:

IT(SS)A.No.145/Ahd/2018 Asstt.Year 2012-13:

“1. The Id. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the Id. A.O. to assume jurisdiction u/s 153C of the I.T. Act,1961 though the seized documents relied upon do not 'belong' to the appellant.

2. The Id. CIT(A) further erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the Id. A.O. to assume jurisdiction u/s 153C of the I.T. Act, 1961 in absence of any incriminating material pointed out in the satisfaction note.

3. The Id. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.75,00,000/-as unexplained advances by the appellant despite the fact that business of the appellant firm has not actually commenced.

4. The Id. CIT(A) further erred in law and on facts in holding that the appellant has earned interest amounting to Rs.2,25,000/-on the alleged unexplained advances.

5. Your appellant craves liberty to add, alter, amend, substitute or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal hereinabove.”

IT(SS)A.No.146/Ahd/2018 Asstt.Year 2013-14:

“1. a) The Ld. CIT(A)-12, Ahmedabad has erred in law and in facts in upholding the action of the Ld. A.O. in holding that the incriminating material / documents found in the course of search at the premises of BRG Infrastructure Ltd. contained the transactions of undisclosed / unaccounted investments / advances in complete disregard of the fact that the appellant had not commenced any business or operations so as to justify the transactions as pertaining to the appellant.

b) The Ld. CIT(A)-12, Ahmedabad has further erred in law and in facts in holding that the alleged incriminating documents / material seized ought to be considered as pertaining to the appellant on the basis of the statement of the appellant's partner owning up the transactions noted as representing unaccounted income of the appellant.

2. The Ld. CIT(A)-12, Ahmedabad has erred in law and in facts in holding that the appellant has earned an interest income of Rs. 9,00,0007- on the alleged unexplained advances made in the A.Y. 2012-13 of an amount of Rs. 75,00,0007-. The addition of Rs. 9,00,0007- confirmed being erroneous in law and in facts is prayed to be deleted.

3. Your appellant craves liberty to add, alter, amend, substitute or withdraw any of the ground of appeal hereinabove contained.” 

To know more in details find the attachment file