9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 1012 - AT - Income TaxAssessment u/s 153C - lack of satisfaction note - Held that - we set aside the assessment and the impugned orders for the reason that the AO of the persons searched, namely, Sh. B.K. Dhingra, Smt. Poonam Dhingra & M/s Madhusudan Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. did not record any satisfaction that some money, bullion, jewellery or books of account or other documents found from these persons belonged to the assessee. The absence of such satisfaction, in our considered opinion, did not translate into conferring a valid and lawful jurisdiction to the AO of the assessee to proceed with the matter of assessment u/s 153C of the Act for all the years under consideration. In the light of the judgment of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. (2014 (8) TMI 425 - DELHI HIGH COURT) and also the findings of the earlier Benches of this Tribunal (supra), we hold that since there was no satisfaction Note by the AO of searched person prior to initiation of proceedings u/s 153C of the Act, the assessments concluded on the assessee u/s 153C of the Act r.w.s 153A of the Act lack jurisdiction and the same are hereby quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of CIT(A) in deleting disallowances of expenditure made by the AO. 2. Justification of CIT(A) in deleting additions made on account of unexplained purchases under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act. 3. Validity of initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Justification of CIT(A) in Deleting Disallowances of Expenditure Made by the AO: The Revenue raised an issue regarding whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowances of expenditure made by the AO. The Tribunal did not provide a detailed analysis of this issue in the judgment as it primarily focused on the jurisdictional challenge raised by the assessee. Therefore, this issue was not adjudicated upon due to the quashing of the assessment orders. 2. Justification of CIT(A) in Deleting Additions Made on Account of Unexplained Purchases Under Section 69C: Similar to the first issue, the Tribunal did not delve into the merits of whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions made on account of unexplained purchases under Section 69C. This issue was rendered moot following the Tribunal's decision to quash the assessment orders based on the jurisdictional challenge. 3. Validity of Initiation of Proceedings Under Section 153C: The primary issue addressed in the judgment was the validity of the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act. The assessee challenged the initiation of these proceedings on the grounds that the AO did not record the required satisfaction in the files of the searched person before initiating proceedings under Section 153C. The Tribunal noted the following key points: - The search and seizure operations were conducted on 20.10.2008 in the cases of certain individuals and entities. - The AO recorded a satisfaction note for issuing notice under Section 153C on 05.07.2010, and the notice was issued on 08.07.2010. - The assessee filed returns for the relevant assessment years in response to the notice. - The satisfaction note indicated that documents seized during the search belonged to the assessee, who was not covered under Section 132 of the Act. The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT, which emphasized the necessity of recording satisfaction by the AO of the searched person. The Tribunal also cited several similar cases where the absence of such satisfaction led to the quashing of the assessments. The Tribunal concluded that: - The AO of the searched person did not record the required satisfaction before initiating proceedings under Section 153C. - The absence of such satisfaction invalidated the jurisdiction of the AO to proceed with the assessments under Section 153C. As a result, the Tribunal quashed the assessment orders for the relevant assessment years (2003-04 to 2008-09) due to the lack of proper jurisdiction. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's cross-objections regarding the invalidity of the proceedings under Section 153C and quashed the assessment orders for the relevant years. Consequently, the issues raised by the Revenue regarding the merits of the case were not adjudicated and were dismissed as infructuous. The decision was pronounced in the open Court on 18th March 2015.
|
