2018 (3) TMI 83 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of proceeding u/s 153C - Held that - As per the provisions u/s 153C where AO is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article on thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belongs to a person other than the person referred to in Section 153A, then the books of account or documents or assets requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer who shall proceed against such other person and issue such person notice and assess or reassess income of such other person in accordance with the provisions of Section 153A. The said MoU does not bear the signature of the assessee. Thus, finding of document in the premises of Amrapali Group does not constitute that the document to be belonging to the assessee. AO cannot merely on presumption states that the seized documents are that of assessee. Firstly, the Assessing Officer has to establish that the seized documents belong to the assessee which the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) failed to looked into. - Decided against revenue

Issues:
1. Validity of initiation of proceedings u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act.
2. Compliance with statutory provisions in the assessment process.
3. Principles of natural justice in assessment proceedings.
4. Addition upheld u/s 69B of the Income Tax Act.

Issue 1: Validity of initiation of proceedings u/s 153C:
The appeal challenged the initiation of proceedings u/s 153C based on an unsigned MoU found during a search operation on a third party. The appellant argued that the document did not belong to them, questioning the lack of satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer of the searched person. The appellant cited a Delhi High Court decision emphasizing the necessity to establish ownership of seized material. The Tribunal agreed, noting the absence of proof that the document belonged to the appellant. The Tribunal held that the initiation was flawed as the Assessing Officer failed to verify ownership, ultimately deeming the proceedings bad in law.

Issue 2: Compliance with statutory provisions in the assessment process:
The appellant contended that the assessment was against statutory provisions, lacking proper verification of ownership of seized documents. The Tribunal concurred, emphasizing the Assessing Officer's failure to demonstrate ownership of the document in question. The Tribunal highlighted the necessity, as per Section 153C, for the Assessing Officer to establish that seized documents belong to the assessee. The Tribunal found the assessment to be procedurally flawed due to the absence of this crucial verification, leading to the quashing of the assessment order.

Issue 3: Principles of natural justice in assessment proceedings:
The appellant argued that the assessment order was passed without affording a reasonable opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. However, the Tribunal did not delve deeply into this issue as the primary focus was on the flawed initiation of proceedings u/s 153C. The Tribunal's decision to quash the assessment order based on procedural deficiencies rendered further discussion on natural justice unnecessary.

Issue 4: Addition upheld u/s 69B of the Income Tax Act:
The appellant contested the addition of ?10,00,000 under section 69B of the Income Tax Act. While this issue was mentioned in the grounds of appeal, the Tribunal's decision primarily revolved around the invalidity of the initiation of proceedings u/s 153C. Consequently, the Tribunal's ruling to partly allow the appeal did not directly address the specific challenge regarding the addition under section 69B.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision in this case primarily focused on the flawed initiation of proceedings u/s 153C due to the lack of verification regarding the ownership of seized documents. The assessment was deemed procedurally incorrect, leading to the quashing of the assessment order. The Tribunal's analysis underscored the importance of complying with statutory provisions and verifying ownership in assessment proceedings to ensure the legality and validity of the process.

← Previous Next →