9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 656 - AT - Income TaxValidity assessment proceedings u/s 153C - recording of satisfaction - ITAT essentially proceeded on the basis that in the absence of a satisfaction recorded in the file of the searched person, no proceedings against the other person u/s 153C could have been initiated - HELD THAT - We note that the aforesaid view as taken appears to be wholly untenable bearing in mind the language employed in Section 153A as well as the judgment rendered by this Court in Ganpati Fincap Services P. Ltd Ors 2017 (5) TMI 1425 - DELHI HIGH COURT as held it is only in certain cases, where the document is such that it may belong to more than one person (including the searched person) that the AO will have to indicate in the satisfaction note the reasons why he is of the opinion that the document belongs to the other person and not the searched person and where the AO of the searched person records that the seized document in question belongs to the other person, and where necessary, gives the reasons therefor, the requirement of section 153C stands satisfied. The failure by the AO in such case to record in the satisfaction note that such document does not belong to the searched person will not vitiate the proceedings u/s153C against the other person. The said opinion as expressed by this Court in Ganpati Fincap was not interfered with by the Supreme Court 2024 (2) TMI 1051 - SC ORDER dismissed the Special Leave Petition preferred by the assessees. It is also apposite to observe the findings as rendered by the Supreme Court in Super Malls Private Limited 2020 (3) TMI 361 - SUPREME COURT held in case, where the assessing officer of the searched person and the other person is the same, there can be one satisfaction note prepared by the assessing officer, as he himself is the assessing officer of the searched person and also the assessing officer of the other person. However, as observed hereinabove, he must be conscious and satisfied that the documents seized/recovered from the searched person belonged to the other person. In such a situation, the satisfaction note would be qua the other person. The second requirement of transmitting the documents so seized from the searched person would not be there as he himself will be the assessing officer of the searched person and the other person and therefore there is no question of transmitting such seized documents to himself. We, consequently allow the instant appeal and set aside the order of the ITAT 2019 (12) TMI 1225 - ITAT DELHI
Issues:
The validity of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 11 December 2019 is challenged by the Department. Summary: Issue 1: Validity of setting aside assessment proceedings under Section 153C The ITAT set aside the assessment proceedings under Section 153C due to lack of satisfaction recorded in the file of the searched person. However, the Court in Ganpati Fincap Services P. Ltd v. Commissioner of Income Tax clarified that only one satisfaction note is required by the Assessing Officer for the other person. The failure to mention that the documents do not belong to the searched person does not vitiate the proceedings against the other person under Section 153C. Issue 2: Legal Position and Mandatory Requirements The Madhya Pradesh High Court reiterated that the Assessing Officer of the searched person must record a satisfaction note for the other person, even if they are the same. The Central Board of Direct Taxes circular clarifies that this obligation remains even when the Assessing Officer is common. The legal position summarized includes the necessity of a satisfaction note for initiating proceedings under Section 153C, the role of the Assessing Officer in transmitting documents, and the importance of specifying ownership of seized documents. Separate Judgement: The Supreme Court in SLP(C) 7146/2018 upheld the opinion expressed by the Court in Ganpati Fincap. Additionally, in Super Malls Private Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, the Court emphasized the mandatory compliance with conditions precedent before issuing notices under Section 153C. The satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer of the searched person, indicating ownership of seized documents, is crucial for initiating proceedings against the other person. In conclusion, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the ITAT's order dated 11 December 2019 based on the legal interpretations and precedents discussed.
|
