2015 (8) TMI 172 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of assessment order u/s. 153C/143(3) - Held that - Satisfaction must be an objective satisfaction based on an enquiry by the AO to establish that the documents referred to in section 153C which is found during the search u/s. 132, which are seized or requisitioned belongs to a person other than the person searched; and there should be a clear finding to that effect based on which only satisfaction as envisaged u/s. 153C can be inferred. Such a finding by the AO is required for attaining the said satisfaction and then it should be recorded in the file of the assessee which is a sine-qua-non to trigger the jurisdiction for the AO to proceed against such other person. In this case this exercise of recording the satisfaction during the assessment proceedings of the person searched has not been carried out and the satisfaction does not satisfy the requirement of Section 153C. On the same date i.e. 23.7.2010, similar satisfaction note, only with the change in the name of the assessee s has been issued arbitrarily which does not in any manner satisfy the requirement of section 153C of the I.T. Act. We could not find any mention of any seized materials like valuable articles or things or any books of account or documents have been referred even in the impugned assessment orders. The AO lacks jurisdiction to initiate proceedings u/s. 153C against the assessee and therefore, the issuance of notice itself is null and void and therefore quashed. Consequently, the impugned assessment order passed u/s. 153C is also a nullity. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and jurisdiction of the notice issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act.
2. Validity of assessment proceedings under Section 153C.
3. Rejection of books of accounts and estimation of income.
4. Non-admission of additional evidence by the CIT (Appeals).
5. Calculation of unexplained investment/expenditure.
6. Principles of natural justice and arbitrary additions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and Jurisdiction of the Notice Issued under Section 153C:
The primary issue raised by the assessee was the lack of proper satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer (AO) of the searched person before initiating proceedings under Section 153C. The assessee argued that the satisfaction note was not recorded by the AO of the person searched, but by the AO of the assessee, which is not in accordance with the law. The Tribunal noted that the satisfaction note must be recorded by the AO of the person searched, which is a jurisdictional fact and a condition precedent for the AO of the 'other person' to acquire jurisdiction. The Tribunal relied on various judgments, including the Delhi ITAT and the Hon'ble Telangana & Andhra Pradesh High Court, which emphasized the necessity of two separate satisfaction notes. The Tribunal concluded that the absence of satisfaction recorded by the AO of the person searched rendered the proceedings under Section 153C void ab initio.

2. Validity of Assessment Proceedings under Section 153C:
The Tribunal examined the satisfaction note dated 03.09.2010, which was recorded by the AO of the assessee before issuing the notice under Section 153C. The Tribunal found that there was no satisfaction note recorded by the AO of the person searched, as confirmed by the replies under the RTI Act. The Tribunal held that the satisfaction recorded by the AO of the assessee could not substitute the requirement of satisfaction by the AO of the person searched. The Tribunal quashed the initiation and the ensuing assessment under Section 153C as void ab initio due to the lack of jurisdiction.

3. Rejection of Books of Accounts and Estimation of Income:
The AO rejected the books of accounts of the assessee on the grounds of non-production of books of accounts, purchase/sale vouchers, and stock register. The AO estimated the income based on the trading and profit & loss account filed by the assessee. The CIT (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal but sustained the addition of Rs. 20,39,117 as unexplained investment/expenditure. The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of this issue due to the quashing of the proceedings under Section 153C.

4. Non-Admission of Additional Evidence by the CIT (Appeals):
The assessee contended that the CIT (Appeals) erred in not admitting additional evidence, including confirmations and confirmed copies of accounts of all parties. The Tribunal did not address this issue separately as the primary ground of lack of jurisdiction under Section 153C was upheld.

5. Calculation of Unexplained Investment/Expenditure:
The assessee challenged the calculation of Rs. 20,39,117 as unexplained investment/expenditure by the CIT (Appeals). The Tribunal noted that the CIT (Appeals) relied on the audited books while rejecting the book results for calculating the peak from the entries in the cash book/bank book. However, the Tribunal did not adjudicate this issue due to the quashing of the proceedings under Section 153C.

6. Principles of Natural Justice and Arbitrary Additions:
The assessee argued that the additions made were against the principles of natural justice, unlawful, arbitrary, and based on surmises and conjectures. The Tribunal acknowledged the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice but focused on the jurisdictional issue under Section 153C, which rendered the assessment proceedings invalid.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal quashed the notices issued under Section 153C and the consequential assessment orders for all the assessment years involved, as the AO failed to record the necessary satisfaction in the case of the person searched. The Tribunal emphasized that the recording of satisfaction by the AO of the person searched is a sine qua non for assuming jurisdiction under Section 153C. Consequently, all other grounds raised by the assessee were rendered academic and were not separately adjudicated.

← Previous Next →