2015 (7) TMI 281 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of the assessment framed u/s 153Ar.w.s. 153C & 143(3) - Held that - As relying on case of Rajesh Rajora vs. Union of India 2015 (7) TMI 194 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT wherein held that section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Search and seizure (Validity of search) Search and seizure proceedings were conducted in premises of a Government Officer on warrant issued by Director, on basis of a document found during search conducted in premises of another person about 9 months before Whether, since section 132 does not confer any arbitrary authority upon revenue officers, they must have in consequence of information, reason to believe that statutory conditions for exercise of power to order search existed Held, yes- Whether, where entire basis of recording satisfaction in assessee s case was a document found during search conducted in premises of another person, which neither bore assessee s name nor indicated that it was related to assessee, warrant of authorization was issued merely on hypothecated grounds, and therefore, issuance of warrant of authorization and subsequent search and seizure proceedings were liable to be quashed Held, yes - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of assessment framed under sections 153A, 153C, and 143(3).
2. Deletion of additions made under sections 69A and 69.
3. Confirmation of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C.
4. Rejection of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c).

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of assessment under sections 153A, 153C, and 143(3)
The case involved a search action under section 132A, leading to the issuance of a notice under section 153C to the assessee. The assessee challenged the assessment order under sections 153A, 153C, and 143(3) before the CIT(A). The counsel for the assessee argued for quashing the order of the Assessing Officer based on a decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in a similar case. The Tribunal noted the decision of the High Court quashing the search and seizure proceedings due to lack of proper grounds for search authorization. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the assessment proceedings in the present case, allowing the first ground of the Cross Objection and rendering the remaining grounds academic.

Issue 2: Deletion of additions under sections 69A and 69
The Revenue appealed against the deletion of additions made under sections 69A and 69 concerning unexplained cash deposits and investments in shares. The CIT(A) had deleted the additions, citing the assessee's failure to explain the nature and source of the deposits and investments. However, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions.

Issue 3: Confirmation of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C
The CIT(A) confirmed the interest charged under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C, which the assessee challenged in the Cross Objection. The Tribunal held that no such interest was chargeable, and therefore, the interest was deleted, allowing this ground of the Cross Objection.

Issue 4: Rejection of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c)
The CIT(A) rejected the grounds challenging the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). The assessee contended that there was no basis or justification for initiating the penalty proceedings. The Tribunal partly allowed the Cross Objection, directing the Assessing Officer to drop the penalty proceedings due to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and partly allowed the Cross Objections, providing detailed analysis and rulings on each issue raised by both parties. The judgments were pronounced on June 29, 2015, by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad.