2015 (9) TMI 127 - AT - Income Tax

Assessment U/s. 153C - Addition towards low withdrawals - Held that - Even though, the AO did mention that there was some incriminating material, there is no satisfaction recorded about the explanation of the income from the person who was searched and how the document is relevant in assessee s case. The order sheet entry only indicate that during the course of search incriminating material regarding undisclosed income of the assessee was found . This statement is common for both assessees. This blank statement can not be considered as satisfaction for initiation of proceedings u/s 153C as it does not indicate the nature of seized material and how income is assessable in assessee hands. As seen from the orders also, there is no discussion about any incriminating material or incomes to be assessed under the provisions of Section 153C. Thus as there is neither any satisfaction recorded by the AO nor there is any incriminating material relevant for making assessments in this case. Therefore, the initiation of proceedings U/s. 153C itself is bad in law. Therefore, consequential proceedings are bad in law and orders are to be cancelled. Even on merits, there is no justification for estimating the low withdrawals on assumptions and presumptions, without there being any basis. In view of that also, the addition made in all the years about the low withdrawals cannot be sustained. Addition on amount received from friend - Held that - As submitted that assessee was working as software engineer in United Kingdom (UK) during the period September 2000 to October 2001 and before he left for UK, he handed over his personal belongings to his friend for sale and the amount of ₹ 74,980/- sent by his friend was shown in the capital account and treated as income of assessee . As can be seen from the order of AO, and CIT(A), they only disbelieved assessee s version. Since this issue does not arise out of any incriminating material and as assessee has shown the amount as a receipt in 2002-03 itself in the capital account, we are of the opinion that addition cannot be made in the proceedings U/s. 153C, without any evidence to contrary to disbelieve assessee s contentions. Be that as it may, as we have already held that initiation of proceedings U/s. 153C are itself bad in law, these issues become academic in nature. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act.
2. Justification of additions towards low withdrawals.
3. Addition of unexplained gift in the hands of the assessee for AY 2002-03.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Proceedings under Section 153C:
The proceedings were initiated under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act following a search and seizure operation conducted on another party. The assessee contended that the proceedings under Section 153C were invalid as there was no satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer (AO) and no incriminating material was found during the search. The Tribunal examined the satisfaction note and found it lacking in specificity and detail. The Tribunal noted that the AO's statement, "during the course of search incriminating material regarding undisclosed income of the assessee was found," was too generic and did not indicate the nature of the seized material or its relevance to the assessee's case. The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble AP High Court in CIT Vs. M/s. Shettys Pharmaceuticals & Biologicals Ltd., which emphasized the necessity of recording satisfaction by the AO conducting the search and the AO having jurisdiction over the third party. The Tribunal concluded that the absence of recorded satisfaction and incriminating material rendered the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C invalid.

2. Justification of Additions towards Low Withdrawals:
The AO made additions towards low withdrawals in various assessment years, estimating amounts ranging from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 30,000. The assessee argued that such additions were unjustified and based on assumptions and presumptions without any basis. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, noting that there was no incriminating material or evidence to support the AO's estimation of low withdrawals. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the additions made on this ground could not be sustained and should be deleted.

3. Addition of Unexplained Gift in AY 2002-03:
An addition of Rs. 74,980 was made in AY 2002-03, which the AO treated as unexplained income. The assessee explained that this amount was received from a friend as proceeds from the sale of personal belongings while the assessee was working in the UK. The Tribunal observed that this issue did not arise from any incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation plausible and noted that the amount was already shown in the capital account for AY 2002-03. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 74,980 could not be made under Section 153C without contrary evidence.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C was invalid due to the lack of recorded satisfaction and incriminating material. Additionally, the Tribunal found no justification for the additions towards low withdrawals and the unexplained gift. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed all the appeals.