2025 (2) TMI 291 - AT - Income Tax

Proceedings u/s 153C or 147/148 - incriminating material seized during a search operation - HELD THAT - AO had to proceed u/s 153C of the Act instead of section 147/148 of the Act the reason being that the proceedings were initiated on the basis of incriminating material in the form of documents including pen-drives seized during search at the premises of the above named group as well as statements recorded during said proceedings. Today when the appeal has been taken up for hearing assessee has submitted copy of notice u/s 153C of the Act issued by Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-4 Jaipur relating to the same assessment year 2011-12 whereby the assessee has been required to prepare true and correct return of his total income for the said assessment years.

Summary

The judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur involves an appeal by the Department against the order of the Learned CIT(A), which set aside an assessment order for the assessment year 2011-12. The core legal issues considered in this case revolve around the applicability of Sections 147/148 and 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in light of incriminating material seized during a search operation.

Issues Presented and Considered:

The primary legal issue addressed was whether the initiation of proceedings under Section 147/148 was appropriate given the circumstances, or whether the proceedings should have been initiated under Section 153C, considering the incriminating material seized during the search of the Ramesh Manihar Group, which was related to the assessee but not directly involving a search on the assessee.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents:

The legal framework involves Sections 147, 148, and 153C of the Income Tax Act. Section 147/148 pertains to the reassessment of income, while Section 153C deals with the assessment of income in cases where incriminating material related to a person other than the one searched is found. The Tribunal referenced the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, which clarified the precedence of Section 153C over Section 147/148 in certain scenarios.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:

The Tribunal relied heavily on the Rajasthan High Court's interpretation, which emphasized that when incriminating material is seized during a search that relates to a person other than the one searched, the appropriate course of action is under Section 153C. The High Court highlighted that Sections 153A to 153D have an overriding effect over the regular provisions for assessment or reassessment under Sections 139, 147, 148, 149, 151, and 153, due to their non-obstante clauses.

Key Evidence and Findings:

The key evidence in this case was the incriminating material, including pen drives and documents, seized during the search of the Ramesh Manihar Group. This material indicated unaccounted cash loans and interest income related to the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the Department did not present any material other than what was seized during the search to justify proceedings under Section 148.

Application of Law to Facts:

The Tribunal applied the legal principles established by the High Court to the facts of the case, concluding that the initiation of proceedings under Section 147/148 was inappropriate given the presence of incriminating material. Instead, the Department should have proceeded under Section 153C, as the material seized was related to the assessee, although the search was conducted on another entity.

Treatment of Competing Arguments:

The Department argued that the derived conclusions from the seized material justified proceedings under Section 148. However, the Tribunal found this argument lacking merit, as it would undermine the concept of a single assessment order for each relevant preceding year when incriminating material is found.

Conclusions:

The Tribunal concluded that the notice issued under Section 148 and the subsequent assessment order were invalid. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to set aside the assessment order, as proceedings should have been initiated under Section 153C.

Significant Holdings:

The Tribunal upheld the principle that in cases involving incriminating material seized during a search, which relates to a person other than the one searched, proceedings must be initiated under Section 153C. It reiterated that the special provisions under Sections 153A to 153D take precedence over the general provisions for reassessment under Sections 147/148.

The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal as infructuous, noting that the Department had already complied with the High Court's decision by issuing a notice under Section 153C for the relevant assessment year. The appeal was thus rendered moot, and the Tribunal ordered the file to be consigned to the record room.