9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (10) TMI 1082 - AT - Income TaxValidity of assessments made u/s.153C - eight month gap between the date of satisfaction note recorded by the A.O. of the searched person and the date of satisfaction note recorded by the Jurisdictional A.O - HELD THAT - The question regarding application of the first proviso to Section 153C (1) has been considered in the case of Jasjit Singh 2023 (10) TMI 572 - SUPREME COURT wherein held that the application of first proviso to section 153C(1) of the Act would not be confined to question of abatement, but also with regard to date from which six year period was to be reckoned in respect of which returns were to be filed by third party and thus, period for which other persons i.e. Assessee is required to file returns, would commence only from date when materials were forwarded to their jurisdictional A.O. In the present Appeals the requisition was made and satisfaction note recorded by the Jurisdictional A.O. on 10/11/2021 the Assessment Year is 2022-23 the end of the Assessment Year 2022-23 is 31/03/2022. The computation of 10 years has to run backward from the said date i.e. 31/03/2022 starting from the AY 2022-23 to 10th Assessment Year 2013-14. The captioned appeals are pertaining to Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 which are beyond 10-year outer ceiling limit prescribed in the statute, thus the Assessment framed by the A.O. for A.Y 2011-12 and 2012-13 are beyond the periods contemplated under section 153C(1) of the Act. Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act. 2. Validity of assessment orders for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13. 3. Confirmation of additions under Section 69 for unexplained investments. 4. Procedural fairness in issuing notices and remand reports. 5. Initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(c). Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of Initiation of Proceedings under Section 153C: The primary issue revolves around the legality of the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act. The Assessee contended that the initiation was "bad in law and void ab initio" as notices under Section 153C cannot be issued beyond six years and up to ten years when the income escaped is less than Rs. 50 Lakhs. The Assessee argued that the alleged income escaping assessment for AY 2008-09 to 2011-12 was only Rs. 48,00,000/-, which is below the threshold of Rs. 50,00,000/-. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jasjeet Singh, which clarified that the period for which returns are required to be filed by the Assessee commences only from the date when materials are forwarded to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The Tribunal found that the proceedings initiated were beyond the ten-year period prescribed by the statute, rendering the assessments for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 invalid. 2. Validity of Assessment Orders for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13: The Tribunal examined the assessment orders for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13, which were framed under Section 153C read with Section 143(3). The Tribunal noted that the search and seizure operation was conducted on 06/03/2018, and the satisfaction note was recorded by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer on 10/11/2021. The Tribunal highlighted that the computation of the ten-year period should run backward from the end of the assessment year 2022-23, which results in the period starting from AY 2013-14. Since the appeals pertain to AY 2011-12 and 2012-13, they fall beyond the ten-year limit, making the assessments invalid. 3. Confirmation of Additions under Section 69 for Unexplained Investments: The Assessee challenged the confirmation of additions of Rs. 48,00,000/- and Rs. 5,20,000/- under Section 69 for unexplained investments. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer made these additions based on seized material and statements without providing the Assessee an opportunity for cross-examination. The Tribunal found merit in the Assessee's argument that the additions were not justified, as they were based on insufficient evidence and procedural lapses. 4. Procedural Fairness in Issuing Notices and Remand Reports: The Assessee argued that the issuance of a modified show-cause notice and reliance on a remand report without granting a personal hearing were procedurally unfair. The Tribunal acknowledged that the Assessee was not given an opportunity to file a rejoinder to the remand report, as the communication was not received. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and found that the Assessee's rights were compromised. 5. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(c): The Assessee raised concerns about the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(c) being unjustified. However, the Tribunal primarily focused on the invalidity of the assessment proceedings, which inherently affected the penalty proceedings. Since the assessments were set aside, the related penalty proceedings were also deemed to lack a valid basis. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the Assessee, setting aside the assessment orders for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 due to the invalid initiation of proceedings under Section 153C and procedural lapses. The Tribunal's decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and ensuring procedural fairness in tax assessments.
|
