2016 (12) TMI 1574 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of assessment u/s 153A - non recording of requisite satisfaction - Held that - Recording of requisite satisfaction in the case of a searched party is a sine qua non for assuming jurisdiction for the issue of notice u/s 153C even if the AO of the searched person and the assessee are same. It is abundantly clear from the satisfaction note recorded in the case of the searched person that there is no requisite satisfaction granting the AO jurisdiction for issuing notice to the assessee u/s 153C of the I.T. Act. The satisfaction note as emanated from files of searched persons, namely, M/s Mukesh Gupta and Gupta Industries Ltd. does not show at all that that the AO in their case has recorded a satisfaction that any of the seized material is belonging to the assessee has been found, and is incriminating in nature which is to be handed over to the AO of the assessee. In such circumstances, in our considered opinion, the assessee deserves to succeed on this account and the assessments are liable to be quashed on account of lack of validity of jurisdiction. Accordingly we set aside the orders of learned CIT(Appeals) on this aspect of jurisdiction and quash the assessments by holding that requisite satisfaction was not recorded before the issue of notice u/s 153C. In this regard we further note that in similar situation when the finding was that requisite satisfaction was not there in the case of the searched person qua incriminating material relating to assessee having been found, the Revenue had withdrawn this appeal before the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the light of Circular No. 24/2015 as referred above, CIT vs. Satkar Roadlines 2015 (8) TMI 710 - ITAT DELHI - Decided in favour of assessee

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.
2. Legality of the notice issued under section 153C.
3. Validity of additions made as undisclosed income.
4. Legitimacy of the Share Capital and Share Premium received.
5. Appropriateness of charging interest under sections 234A and 234B.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax:
The appellants challenged the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(3), claiming it was "bad in law and wrong on facts." However, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the order, rejecting the appellants' claims without providing substantial reasons.

2. Legality of the Notice Issued Under Section 153C:
The appellants argued that the notice issued under section 153C and the subsequent proceedings were "bad in law." They contended that no incriminating documents for the relevant year were found during the search, making the notice unjustified. The CIT(A) dismissed this challenge, noting that several incriminating documents were found and seized during the search, and the appellant’s representative had inspected and taken photocopies of relevant documents. The tribunal, however, found that the satisfaction required by the AO of the searched persons before initiating proceedings under section 153C was not recorded, which vitiated the assessments. The tribunal cited multiple case laws and a CBDT Circular No. 24/2015 to support this conclusion, ultimately quashing the assessments due to lack of jurisdiction.

3. Validity of Additions Made as Undisclosed Income:
The appellants contended that the AO erred in making additions as undisclosed income, claiming the increase in share capital and share premium was adequately explained with evidence. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's action, concluding that the transactions were not genuine but a facade for concealing the true situation of affairs. The tribunal did not engage in adjudicating this aspect further, as the assessments were already quashed on jurisdictional grounds.

4. Legitimacy of the Share Capital and Share Premium Received:
The appellants argued that the share capital and share premium received during the year were genuine and fully explained. The CIT(A) disagreed, holding that the transactions were merely a facade, and the companies involved acted as intermediates to channelize investments. The tribunal did not address this issue further due to the quashing of assessments on jurisdictional grounds.

5. Appropriateness of Charging Interest Under Sections 234A and 234B:
The appellants claimed that the interest charged under sections 234A and 234B was improper. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action in charging the interest. The tribunal did not delve into this issue, as the primary jurisdictional issue had already led to the quashing of the assessments.

Conclusion:
The tribunal found that the absence of proper satisfaction recorded by the AO of the searched persons before initiating proceedings under section 153C invalidated the jurisdiction for the assessments. Consequently, the assessments were quashed, and the appeals filed by the assessees were allowed. The tribunal did not address the merits of the additions or other issues as the jurisdictional issue was dispositive.

← Previous Next →