2023 (12) TMI 1304 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of assessment proceedings u/s 153C - absence of a valid satisfaction note prior to initiation - HELD THAT - There is no dispute the satisfaction note u/s 153C has been recorded by the AO. It is well settled law that the Assessing Officer need to make only one satisfaction note, if the AO is same for the 'person searched' and 'other person' u/s 153C of the Act. Thus, we find no merit in ground of the assessee, accordingly, dismissed. Addition u/s 69 - documents were found from the premises of the searched person in search and seizure operation - validity of Dumb documents seized - assessee submitted that the addition has been made based on the dumb document and the said document does not bear date or signature - HELD THAT - Papers found during the search are neither dated nor signed/stamped, there is no head note on the paper which could suggest the purpose for which it was created, the loose paper contained list of many other property transaction which were related neither to the assessee nor to Sh. Buti Singh (seller) which demonstrates that neither the assessee nor the seller was the author of the document. The loose paper did not belong to the assessee or to the seller, there is no description or comment explaining the hand written jottings-whether it represented a proposal for purchase or construction by the builder or payment between assessee and right seller, there is no date of receipt or payment mentioned against any figure, the content of the paper was incorrect as the total sales consideration did not match to the sales consideration as per the agreement. Further, the sales consideration as per the loose paper did not even match to the handwritten jottings which raise serious doubts on its validity and accuracy. Thus, the above said loose paper was not speaking document and it is a dumb document which can be used as a basis for making the addition u/s 69 of the Act in the absence of any substantive enquiry to validate the content of the paper with any supportive and corroborative material and evidence. The evidentiary value of loose paper which is unsigned, undated and unverified has been held to be highly questionable and has not been accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts. Thus in absence of any supportive and corroborative material and evidence, a loose paper found during search containing rough notings of proposals/offers could not be a basis for making addition u/s 69 of the Act. See SHRI SHARAD CHAUDHARY 2014 (8) TMI 309 - ITAT DELHI AO did not consider the need to summon the seller or the person searched, or to record the statement of the author/searched person/seller by giving an opportunity to assessee to cross examine the said person. The AO has not even made any enquiry about the value of the property purchased by the assessee. Thus we delete the addition made u/s 69. Addition on account of audit objection and passing the order u/s 154 before the proceedings u/s 153C of the Act were completed - assessee submitted that the Ld. AO was wrong to make addition on account of audit objection and passing order u/s 154 of the Act, before the proceedings u/s 153C were completed and the rectification proceedings are limited to correction of mistake apparent from record only - HELD THAT - The issue raised by the assessee in this Ground is not emanating from the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) which is under challenge before us, therefore, the Ground No. 3 is dismissed as devoid of merit.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this judgment include the validity of assessment proceedings under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, the confirmation of addition made under section 69 of the Act, and the addition made on account of audit objection before completion of section 153C proceedings.

Validity of Assessment Proceedings under Section 153C:
The appeal challenged the initiation of assessment proceedings under section 153C of the Act, alleging absence of a valid satisfaction note prior to initiation. The appellant contended that the jurisdictional transfer was not accompanied by the required satisfaction note, rendering the entire assessment proceedings void ab initio. However, the Departmental Representative argued that only one satisfaction note is needed if the Assessing Officer is the same for both the searched and other persons under section 153C. The Tribunal upheld the validity of the assessment proceedings, noting that the satisfaction note had been duly recorded by the Assessing Officer.

Confirmation of Addition under Section 69:
The appeal contested the addition of Rs.76,75,000 made under section 69 of the Act, based on a document found during a search operation. The appellant argued that the document was unreliable as it lacked essential details and clarity, making it a "dumb document" with questionable evidentiary value. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, emphasizing that the document did not provide sufficient basis for the addition. It highlighted that the document was unsigned, undated, and lacked corroboration, leading to the deletion of the addition under section 69.

Addition on Account of Audit Objection:
Another issue raised was the addition of Rs.24,04,394 on account of an audit objection and passing of an order under section 154 before completion of section 153C proceedings. The appellant argued that the addition was premature and exceeded the scope of rectification proceedings. However, the Tribunal dismissed this ground as it did not directly relate to the impugned order under challenge. Consequently, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, deleting the addition made under section 69 of the Act while dismissing the challenge related to the audit objection addition.

Separate Judgment Delivered:
No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.