Connect us       New User?     Subscribe Now
Confirm your Email ID for Updates
05.10.2018 - Voice of CA presents - Latest Updates
Friday, October 5, 2018

  I. Headlines Today:   

  1. Govt may extend term of GST anti-profiteering watchdog  (Click for detail)
  2. Supreme Court bars litigation on resolution plans before submission to NCLT  (Click for detail)
  3. CBDT unveils final notification to provide Sec. 112A relief to off-market acquisitions  (Click for detail)
  4. Direct tax mop up emerges as bright spot for govt  (Click for detail)
  5. Corporate advance tax growth rate doubles  (Click for detail)
  6. Ahead of monetary policy, RBI steps in with heavy dollar intervention  (Click for detail)
  7. Private firms can use Aadhaar-based offline verification, says UIDAI CEO  (Click for detail)

II. A Useful Presentation:

1.  An Overview of Income Computation & Disclosure Standards (ICDS)
     and its Impact

     (Please click here)

(Contribution by CA. Sanjay K. Agarwal, Founder - Voice of CA; and contributor is available at Email-id: )

  III. Direct Taxes Case Law: 

1.  ACIT Vs. K.G. Finvest Pvt. Ltd, I.T.A. No. 6759/Del/2013, Date of Pronouncement: 28.04.2017, ITAT - Delhi

Whether notice u/s 153A issued consequent to search u/s 132 lacks jurisdiction if the search warrant executed doesn’t mention  the name and address of the assessee?

Held: Yes

Brief facts:
A search and seizure action was carried out in Swastik Pipes group of cases on 28.08.2008. Notice u/s153A was issued and served on 25.08.2010 on the assessee. Assessment was completed on total income of Rs.33,43,390/- after making addition of Rs.33,30,000/- on account of share application money received from various persons. On appeal to first appellate authority, assessee challenged the initiation of proceedings u/s 153A contending that no warrant of search was executed on assessee which was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A). However, Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition to the tune of Rs.30,80,000/- on merits of the case.

Being aggrieved, the assessee and revenue have filed cross appeals before the Hon’ble ITAT.

The Hon’bleITAT held that unless a search is initiated u/s 132 or requisition is made u/s 132A on aperson, no jurisdiction can be assumed for making assessment by issuing notice u/s 153A. In the present case, the warrant of authorization included the name of “K.G. Finvest& Trade Pvt.Ltd”, whereas the assessee’s name is “K.G. Finvest Pvt. Ltd”. Moreover, the assessee had categorically submitted that none of its directors had any directorships in companies mentioned in the warrant &annexure and address mentioned didn’t belong to assessee, which was not controverted by Ld.AO during assessment proceedings.
Also, during proceedings before Hon’be ITAT, no material or evidence to prove actual conduct of search on assessee was provided by Ld.DR. As a result, it was held that neither any search was “initiated” nor “conducted’ on assessee and therefore, notice u/s 153A was issued without any jurisdiction.

Therefore, the appeal was held in favour of assessee and against the revenue.

Cases Referred:
1.    Gunjan Girishbhai Mehta VS. D.I. (2017)80 taxmann.com23(SC).
2.    MDLR Resorts Pvt. Ltd. vs.CIT & Ors. (2014) 361 ITR 407 (Delhi HC).

(Please click here for judgment)

Golden Rules:

  "Never think hard about past, it bring tears,
don't think more about future, it bring fears,
live this moment with a smile, it bring cheers" 


Thanks & Regards


Voice of CA 

« Back
Online Poll
Connect Us       New User?     Subscribe Now