2022 (7) TMI 638 - HC - Income Tax

Assessment u/s 153C and 153A - Unexplained investment - Assessee argued as non-adhering to the principle of preponderance of probability as no ordinary prudent person would sell his shares at a loss of 90% within five days of purchase without receiving balance consideration outside books of accounts - HELD THAT - As in the present case, both the CIT (A) as well as ITAT have given concurrent findings of fact that no incriminating materials had been seized during search. Consequently, the contention of learned counsel for the Appellant that incriminating documents or materials had been found and seized at the time of search is contrary to fact. CIT(A) had directed that the transactions need to be scrutinised in the case of the seller of the shares, namely, Triveni Infrastructure and Development Company Limited (TIDCL). Also, the same shares had been sold by assessee in the subsequent Assessment Year 2011-2012 at a lesser price as against the addition made by the Assessing Officer which is accepted by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Act. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the question of law raised in present appeal has been settled by earlier Division Bench in Kabul Chawla ( 2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT and no incriminating documents or materials had been found and seized at the time of search. Accordingly, no question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge to ITAT order confirming CIT(A) decision on unexplained investment
- Interpretation of incriminating material in relation to seized documents
- Application of legal principles under Sections 153A and 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961
- Jurisdiction under Section 153C based on seized documents
- Requirement of incriminating material for assessment under Section 153A
- Examination of satisfaction for initiating proceedings under Section 153C

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's (ITAT) decision confirming the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] order on the deletion of additions made by the assessing officer regarding unexplained investment. The appellant argued that the ITAT erred in not considering the principle of preponderance of probability and in deeming the balance/trial sheet found during search as non-incriminating material.

2. The court referred to the legal position established in previous decisions regarding Sections 153A and 153C of the Income Tax Act. It emphasized that assessments under Section 153A must be based on seized material and incriminating evidence. The court also noted that the absence of incriminating material during search precludes the addition of such issues in the assessment.

3. The court highlighted the importance of establishing a clear nexus between seized documents and undisclosed income before initiating proceedings under Section 153C. It cited precedents where the jurisdiction under Section 153C was deemed invalid due to the lack of relevance of seized assets/documents to the Assessee's income.

4. The court reiterated that the satisfaction of the assessing officer is crucial for initiating proceedings under Section 153C. The satisfaction must be based on tangible material and must demonstrate a reasonable connection between the seized documents and undisclosed income. The court emphasized that the satisfaction should not be arbitrary or speculative.

5. In the present case, both the CIT(A) and ITAT concurred that no incriminating material was seized during the search. The court noted that the appellant's claim of incriminating documents being found was unfounded. Additionally, the court observed that the transactions involving the shares in question had been scrutinized in subsequent assessment years, further supporting the lack of undisclosed income.

6. Based on the settled legal principles and the absence of incriminating material, the court dismissed the appeal, stating that no question of law arose for consideration. The court upheld the decision of the lower authorities and emphasized the importance of adhering to established legal standards in income tax assessments.