9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 1061 - AT - Income TaxAssessment u/s 153A - Proof of search and seizure operation on the assessee - HELD THAT - We are inclined to hold that the AO was not validly entitled to issue notice u/s 153A and to frame assessment order u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act for AYs 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 as there was no search and seizure operation on the assessee. Therefore, the notice u/s 153A of the Act and assessment orders framed in pursuance thereto deserves to be quashed being void ab initio and bad in law passed without having valid jurisdiction. Therefore, we quash the same. Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of assessment framed under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether a search operation was conducted on the assessee or merely a survey operation. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of assessment framed under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The core legal ground raised by the assessee was the validity of the assessment framed under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act. The assessee contended that no search operation had taken place on its premises, and only a survey operation under Section 133A was conducted. The assessee argued that the assessment orders passed under Section 153A were void ab initio and bad in law due to the absence of incriminating material and the lack of a valid search operation. The Tribunal noted that the address mentioned in the warrant of authorization and panchnama did not belong to the assessee. The search and seizure operation was conducted at a different address, which was not the business premises of the assessee. The Tribunal observed that the search team did not visit the actual business premises of the assessee, and no office bearer or staff member of the assessee participated in the search operation. The Tribunal relied on the case of Regency Mahavir Properties vs. ACIT, where it was held that the conditions stipulated under Section 153A for issuing notice were not satisfied if the search was not conducted at the assessee's business premises. The Tribunal also referred to Dr. Mansukh Kanjibhai Shah vs. ACIT, which emphasized that the warrant of authorization must be executed, and a panchnama must be drawn to justify invoking jurisdiction under Section 153A. Based on these observations, the Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not assume valid jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 153A and frame assessment orders under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, the assessment orders were quashed as void ab initio and bad in law. 2. Whether a search operation was conducted on the assessee or merely a survey operation: The assessee argued that only a survey operation under Section 133A was conducted on its premises, and no search and seizure operation under Section 132 took place. The Tribunal examined the documents, including the warrant of authorization and panchnama, and found that the address mentioned in these documents did not belong to the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the survey operation was conducted at the assessee's actual business premises, where the statement of the Vice Chairman and Managing Director was recorded, and documents were impounded. The Tribunal observed that the search operation was conducted on other entities, namely AEZ Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and Aeren Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., at a different address. The Tribunal concluded that there was no search and seizure operation on the assessee, and the AO did not have valid jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 153A and frame assessment orders under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act. In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the AO was not validly entitled to issue notice under Section 153A and frame assessment orders under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11. The assessment orders were quashed as void ab initio and bad in law. Consequently, the other grounds of the assessee were not adjudicated upon as they became academic in nature. The appeals filed by the assessee were partly allowed.
|
