9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 257 - AT - Income TaxValidity of Assessments made u/s 153C - mandation of recording satisfaction as per section 153C followed or not? - HELD THAT - No satisfaction note have been recorded under section 153C of the I.T. Act. The A.O. passed the assessment order for the assessment year under appeal i.e., 2013-2014 under section 143(3) considering the preceding A.Y. 2012-2013 to the year of the search. However, the First proviso to Section 153C of the I.T. Act provides that six assessment years for which assessments or re-assessments could be made under section 153C of the I.T. Act would also have to be construed with reference to the date of handing-over of the assets or documents to the A.O. of the assessee. Therefore, the six assessment years under section 153C in the case of the assessee would be A.Ys. 2008-2009 to 2013-2014 under appeal . Thus the A.O. shall have to pass the assessment order under section 153C of the I.T. Act instead of passing the assessment order under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act. The A.O. has not followed the proviso to Section 153C of the I.T. Act. No satisfaction note have been recorded in the case of person searched and no notice under section 153C have been issued to the assessee. Mandatory provisions of Section 153C shall have to be followed by the A.O. before proceeding in the matter where A.O. is same in the case of person searched or the third party. The mandatory conditions of Section 153C of the I.T. Act shall have to be complied with by the A.O. which is also subsequently clarified by the CBDT in their Circular issued in this regard. Therefore, the contention of the Ld. D.R. have no merit and are accordingly rejected.See M/S. BNB INVESTMENT PROPERTIES AND SHRI RANJAN GUPTA VERSUS DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1. 2018 (8) TMI 597 - ITAT DELHI - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of assuming the impugned year as the year of search. 2. Validity of assessment under Section 143(3) instead of Section 153C. 3. Lack of satisfaction note under Section 153C. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of assuming the impugned year as the year of search: The Assessee contended that the A.O. incorrectly assumed the assessment year 2013-14 as the year of search, whereas the correct year should be 2014-15, as documents pertaining to the Assessee were received on 29.08.2013. This argument is based on the First proviso to Section 153C of the I.T. Act, which states that the date of search for the Assessee should be the date when the documents were received by the A.O. The Tribunal admitted this additional ground as it was legal in nature and went to the root of the matter. The Tribunal referred to its earlier decision for the A.Y. 2012-13, where it was held that the relevant assessment years should be reckoned from the date of receiving the documents, making the year of search A.Y. 2014-15. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the A.O. erred in assuming the impugned year as the year of search. 2. Validity of assessment under Section 143(3) instead of Section 153C: The Assessee argued that the assessment should have been framed under Section 153C of the I.T. Act, as the documents were received on 29.08.2013. The Tribunal noted that the A.O. passed the assessment order under Section 143(3) without issuing a notice under Section 153C, which is mandatory. The Tribunal referred to its previous decision and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court's judgment in CIT vs. RRJ Securities Ltd., which held that the six assessment years for which assessments could be made under Section 153C should be reckoned from the date of receiving the documents. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the assessment order under Section 143(3) was invalid and should have been passed under Section 153C. 3. Lack of satisfaction note under Section 153C: The Assessee contended that no satisfaction note was recorded under Section 153C, which is a mandatory requirement. The Tribunal found that the A.O. admitted in response to an RTI application that no satisfaction note was recorded. The Tribunal emphasized that recording a satisfaction note is a condition precedent for taking action under Section 153C. The Tribunal referred to its previous decisions and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court's judgment, which reiterated the necessity of recording a satisfaction note before initiating proceedings under Section 153C. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the absence of a satisfaction note rendered the assessment order void and illegal. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the assessment order, declaring it null and void due to the incorrect assumption of the year of search, the failure to follow the mandatory provisions of Section 153C, and the lack of a satisfaction note. The Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal, resulting in the deletion of all additions. As the assessment order was quashed on the additional grounds, the Tribunal did not address the merits of the additions, leaving them as academic discussions.
|
