9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 837 - AT - Income TaxValidity of assessment framed u/s 153C - recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer of searched person - assessee submitted that the information furnished by the Revenue under the Right to Information Act, reveals that the AO of the searched party has not recorded any satisfaction. - Held that - In the absence of a satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer of the searched persons, the Assessment framed u/s 153C of the Act by the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained, as such same is bad in law. See Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. Versus. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2014 (8) TMI 425 - DELHI HIGH COURT It is observed that the Revenue has not placed any material on record in respect of evidence qua the present assessee collected during the search operation. Moreover, the satisfaction as envisaged under Section 153C is also not placed on record. Therefore, we have no option but to accept the contention of Ld. Counsel for the assessee that no satisfaction was recorded by the Assessing Officer of the searched party, this contention is supported by the reply of Revenue furnished under Right to Information Act. It is expected that the Assessing Officer should be careful in complying with the mandate of law to avoid loss to exchequer. Accordingly the ground raised by the assessee in cross objection, that the proceedings initiated under Section 153C is bad in law is allowed. The assessment framed u/s 153C read with section 143(3) pertaining to the Assessment Year 2003-04 is quashed. Since we have quashed the assessment on the legal issues. We are not adjudicating the other grounds raised in cross objection - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act. 2. Deletion of additions made under Section 69C and disallowance of expenditure. 3. Jurisdiction and procedural compliance under Section 153C. 4. Requirement and recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer of the searched party. 5. Admissibility of evidence and opportunity to cross-examine. 6. Interest charged under Sections 234A and 234B. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Proceedings under Section 153C: The central issue was whether the proceedings initiated under Section 153C were valid. The Assessee contended that the notice issued and the assessment order passed under Section 153C/143(3) were illegal, bad in law, time-barred, without jurisdiction, and against the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal examined whether the Assessing Officer of the searched party had recorded the necessary satisfaction as required under Section 153C. It was found that no such satisfaction was recorded, making the proceedings invalid and the assessment framed under Section 153C unsustainable. 2. Deletion of Additions under Section 69C and Disallowance of Expenditure: The Revenue challenged the deletion of additions amounting to Rs. 15,01,580 on account of unexplained purchases under Section 69C and Rs. 4,62,316 on account of disallowance of expenditure. The CIT(A) had modified the assessment order by directing the AO to work out the peak from the entries in the cash book and make a singular addition of the said amount as unexplained investment/expenditure. The Tribunal, however, did not delve into the merits of these additions due to the primary issue of jurisdiction under Section 153C. 3. Jurisdiction and Procedural Compliance under Section 153C: The Assessee argued that the assessment proceedings were not pending on the date of recording satisfaction under Section 153C, making the proceedings bad in law. The Tribunal emphasized that the satisfaction of the AO of the searched party is a sine qua non for assuming jurisdiction under Section 153C. The absence of such satisfaction rendered the proceedings and the subsequent assessment null and void. 4. Requirement and Recording of Satisfaction by the Assessing Officer of the Searched Party: The Tribunal highlighted that recording satisfaction by the AO of the searched party is a mandatory precondition for initiating proceedings under Section 153C. This satisfaction must be explicit and cannot be inferred from the conduct of the AO. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT, which mandated that the AO of the searched person must be satisfied that documents seized belong to a person other than the searched person. In the absence of such recorded satisfaction, the assessment under Section 153C is unsustainable. 5. Admissibility of Evidence and Opportunity to Cross-examine: The Assessee contended that the AO used statements of various persons without providing copies or opportunities to cross-examine. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue due to the primary finding on the invalidity of the proceedings under Section 153C. 6. Interest Charged under Sections 234A and 234B: The Assessee argued that the interest charged under Sections 234A and 234B was wrongly and illegally charged and was highly excessive. However, the Tribunal did not adjudicate on this issue as the primary ground of invalid proceedings under Section 153C was upheld. Conclusion: The Tribunal quashed the assessment orders for the Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-09 due to the absence of recorded satisfaction by the AO of the searched party, making the proceedings under Section 153C invalid. Consequently, the appeals by the Revenue were dismissed as infructuous, and the cross-objections by the Assessee were partly allowed on the grounds of jurisdictional validity.
|
