By A Separate Order Passed Today In Income Tax Appeal v. M/S Pnc. Infratech Ltd.) For The Assessment Year

Court No. - 39 Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 44 of 2019 Appellant :- Principal Commissioner Of Income TaxRespondent :- M/S Guru Prasad Holding Pvt. Ltd.Counsel for Appellant :- Manu GhildyalCounsel for Respondent :- Rahul Agarwal Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J. 1. Heard Mr. Manu Ghildyal, learned counsel for therevenue-appellant and Ms. Upasana Agarwal, Advocateholding brief of Mr. Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for theassessee-respondent. 2. The above Income Tax Appeal has been filed underSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafterreferred to as the "Act") against the order dated 11thOctober, 2018 passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Agra Bench, Agra in Income Tax Appeal No.310/Agra/2017 for Assessment Year 2010-2011. 3. By that order, the learned Tribunal has dismissed theappeal filed by the revenue and, thus, confirmed the orderpassed by the CIT (Appeals) dated 28th February, 2017,allowing the assessee's appeal, deleting additions madeunder Section 68 of the Act with respect to share capitalRs. 19 crores invested in the assessee's company by threeentities, namely-M/s Jewellock Trexim Pvt. Ltd., M/s AlbertaMerchants Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Guru Prasad Holding Pvt. Ltd.. 4. The present appeal has been pressed on the followingquestions of law: "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the caseand in law, the ITAT was justified in confirming the order ofthe CIT (A), without calling for the assessment records, onthe ground that no satisfaction u/s 153C was recorded byAO, when the revenue in its grounds of appeal before ITAThad clearly mentioned that the reasons have been dulyrecorded by the AO and available on record creatingsubstantial question of law in view of ratio of judgment incase of Vijay Kumar Talwar 300 ITR 1 (SC)? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case andin law, the ITAT was justified in confirming the order ofCIT(A) annulling the assessment order by accepting thecontention of the assessee that no satisfaction u/s 153Cwas recorded by AO, without appreciating that theassessee had duly participated in the proceedings u/s 153C and never raised any objection before the AOregarding non recording of satisfaction u/s 153C and hencesuch contention was impermissible? 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case andin law, the order of the ITAT was perverse on the groundthat it failed to call for the records to verify the conclusionof CIT(A) that there was no satisfaction recorded as againstthe contention of the revenue that satisfaction wasavailable on record?". 5. By a separate order passed today in Income Tax AppealNo. 46 of 2019 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs.M/s Pnc. Infratech Ltd.) for the Assessment Year 2010-2011, we have dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue.In that case, question of law proposed was para materia toquestion no.3 in the present appeal. 6. Insofar as question no.3 proposed/involved in thepresent appeal and the solitary question dealt with inIncome Tax Appeal No. 46 of 2019 was merit issue andsince that appeal has not been entertained, same fatemust arise in the present appeal, insofar as it relates toproposed question no.3. 7. Since the appeal has been dismissed on the merit issue,we find, question nos.1 and 2 proposed/raised in thepresent appeal are academic. 8. Accordingly, the present appeal is also dismissed. (Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh, J.) Order Date :- 30.11.2023 Sushil/-