9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 612 - AT - Income TaxValidity of jurisdiction u/s 153A of the Act - Search conducted u/s 132(1) of the Act - Whether in the absence of the assessee s name being mentioned in the Panchnama, jurisdiction u/s 153A of the Act was not validly invoked - Held that - The Warrant of Authorisation contains the name of the assessee thus, absence of the assessee s name in the Panchnama is not fatal to the conduct of the search - If the authorization is valid, absence of the name of the assessee in Panchnama will not render the search operation invalid, if other requirements of law are fulfilled Relying upon M/s Rajat Tradecom (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT 2008 (9) TMI 424 - ITAT INDORE - for applicability of Section 153A, the initiation of search is necessary - Section 153A would be applicable where a search is initiated u/s 132 - before invoking the provisions of Section 153A, it would be necessary to comply with the provisions contained in Section 132 (1) - Decided against Assessee. Whether since the premises searched was not owned by the assessee, the search conducted was not a search as envisaged u/s 132 of the Act, thereby vitiating the invocation of jurisdiction u/s 153A of the Act Held that - It cannot be denied that this is an issue pertaining to jurisdiction - It goes to the very root of the matter - It is not that the premises was owned by the assessee but was rented out - the premises searched does not belong to the assessee - non-compliance of the provisions of the Income-tax Act by the authorized officer renders a search invalid and illegal - Relying upon Dr. Mansukh Kanjibhai Shah vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2 2010 (5) TMI 536 - ITAT, AHMEDABAD - Since no search was conducted on the premises of the assessee and the search conducted was conducted on a premises not owned by the assessee, the proceedings u/s 153A of the Act are invalid and bad in law Decided in favour of Assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of assessments framed under Sections 153A/143(3) of the IT Act. 2. Jurisdictional challenge due to the absence of the assessee's name in the Panchnama. 3. Validity of disallowance made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the IT Rules. 4. Deletion of addition made on account of undisclosed income based on seized documents. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Assessments Framed Under Sections 153A/143(3) of the IT Act: The assessee challenged the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer under Section 153A of the IT Act on the grounds that no search warrant was issued in its name and no Panchnama was drawn in its name. The CIT (A) observed that the name of the assessee company was mentioned in the warrant issued for the search of the premises at 3rd Floor, Global Arcade, MG Road, Gurgaon. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s view, stating that once a search is initiated by the issuance and execution of a search warrant, the Assessing Officer has valid jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 153A of the Act. 2. Jurisdictional Challenge Due to Absence of the Assessee's Name in the Panchnama: The assessee argued that the absence of its name in the Panchnama invalidated the jurisdiction under Section 153A. The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the Warrant of Authorization containing the name of the assessee is sufficient for compliance with Section 132(1). The Tribunal cited the case of 'M/s Rajat Tradecom (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT' to support the view that the initiation of search is necessary for the applicability of Section 153A, and the absence of the assessee's name in the Panchnama does not invalidate the search operation if the authorization is valid. 3. Validity of Disallowance Made Under Section 14A Read with Rule 8D of the IT Rules: The Department contended that the CIT (A) erred in restricting the disallowance of Rs. 17,33,118/- to Rs. 70,000/- for Assessment Year 2002-03 and deleting the disallowance for Assessment Years 2003-04 and 2004-05. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in detail, as the jurisdictional issues were found to be more critical and decisive in this case. 4. Deletion of Addition Made on Account of Undisclosed Income Based on Seized Documents: For Assessment Year 2004-05, the Department also challenged the deletion of an addition of Rs. 1,80,53,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosed income based on seized documents. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in detail, as the jurisdictional issues were found to be more critical and decisive in this case. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that since no search was conducted on the premises of the assessee and the search conducted was on a premises not owned by the assessee, the proceedings under Section 153A of the Act are invalid and bad in law. Consequently, the orders of the authorities below were set aside and quashed. The appeals filed by the Department were dismissed, and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee were partly allowed. The order was pronounced in the open court on 14.03.2014.
|
