2017 (6) TMI 290 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of assessment u/s 153C - addition in the hands of person other than searched person - Held that - There is no merit in the initiation of proceedings under section 153C of the Act in the case of assessee. In the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search of the person, who is covered under section 153A of the Act, which in turn, belongs to the person, other than the searched person i.e. assessee before us, then the proceedings under section 153C of the Act cannot be triggered. Accordingly, we hold so. Accordingly, the proceedings completed thereafter i.e. the order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act is invalid and without any jurisdiction and the same is cancelled. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of the notice issued under section 153C.
3. Legality of the addition of ?34,12,230/- for unaccounted investment in land.
4. Reliance on seized documents found with a third party for making additions.
5. Applicability of presumption under section 132(4A) to the assessee.
6. Justification of the addition based on seized documents not belonging to the assessee.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Assessment Order under Section 143(3) r.w.s 153C:
The assessee challenged the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 153C, arguing that it was "bad in law" and should be declared null and void. The Tribunal examined whether the pre-amended provisions of section 153C were applicable, which required that the seized documents must belong to a third party other than the person searched. The Tribunal found that the documents in question did not belong to the assessee, thereby invalidating the proceedings initiated under section 153C.

2. Validity of the Notice Issued under Section 153C:
The assessee contended that the notice issued under section 153C was invalid. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had recorded reasons for the search action and issued the notice accordingly. However, it was determined that the documents seized during the search did not belong to the assessee, which is a prerequisite for invoking section 153C. Therefore, the notice was declared invalid.

3. Legality of the Addition of ?34,12,230/- for Unaccounted Investment:
The CIT(A) had confirmed an addition of ?34,12,230/- on the grounds that the assessee made an unaccounted investment in land. The Tribunal reviewed the seized documents and found that the documents did not belong to the assessee but to the searched person, Mr. Vijay Rajaram Shah. Consequently, the addition based on these documents was deemed unjustified.

4. Reliance on Seized Documents Found with a Third Party:
The Tribunal emphasized that no addition could be made in the hands of the assessee based on evidence found with a third party. The seized documents were found with Mr. Vijay Rajaram Shah, and the Tribunal held that these documents could not be used to make additions in the assessee's case.

5. Applicability of Presumption under Section 132(4A) to the Assessee:
The assessee argued that the presumption under section 132(4A) applied only to the person searched and not to third parties. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the seized documents were not related to the assessee, and thus, the presumption could not be applied to justify the addition.

6. Justification of the Addition Based on Seized Documents Not Belonging to the Assessee:
The Tribunal found that the seized documents did not belong to the assessee, as required by section 153C. The documents were related to the searched person, Mr. Vijay Rajaram Shah. Therefore, the addition made based on these documents was not justified.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under section 153C was invalid as the seized documents did not belong to the assessee. Consequently, the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 153C was declared null and void. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the addition of ?34,12,230/- was set aside. The grounds of appeal on merits became academic in nature due to the invalidation of the assessment order.