9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 304 - HC - Income TaxValidity for assessment u/s 153A - Notice u/s 153C - Held that - The documents in question could not be said to belonging to the Assessee. In Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (2014 (8) TMI 898 - DELHI HIGH COURT), this Court has explained that the expression belongs to must not be confused with the expression relates to . As an illustration, this Court has referred to a registered sale deed which, although, registered by the vendor would belong to the purchaser of the property and could not be considered to be belonging to the vendor only because the vendor s name was mentioned in the documents. In the present case, although the photocopies of the documents handed over to SVP Builders India Ltd. may be copies of the original documents that belong to the assessee, the said photocopies would belong to SVP Builders India Ltd. as the same were handed over to it in connection with the investment made by the Assessee. Similarly, a certified copy of the Assessee s resolution signed by its Directors, would also belong to the SVP Builders India Ltd. even though the minutes of the Board meeting form a part of the record of the Assessee. We find no infirmity with the view taken by the ITAT in this regard. Thus, notwithstanding the controversy whether the assessing officer of the searched persons had recorded his satisfaction that the specified seized documents belonged to the Assessee, the initiation of proceedings under section 153C of the Act, in respect of the Assessee would be without jurisdiction. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of search and seizure operations and additions under Section 153C/143(3) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Validity of additions made in non-abated assessments. 3. Whether the findings of the ITAT are perverse. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of search and seizure operations and additions under Section 153C/143(3) of the Income Tax Act: The Revenue challenged the ITAT's decision, which held that there was no valid search since the impugned additions were made under Section 153C/143(3) without reference to any material found as a result of the search. The proceedings originated from search and seizure operations under Section 132 of the Act on the SVP Group of companies. The Revenue argued that the core SVP Group companies were involved in unaccounted cash transactions, which were routed back into the Group companies as share application/unsecured loans, share capital, etc. The assessment orders were issued under Section 153C, but the Assessee disputed the issuance and timing of these notices. The ITAT upheld the Assessee's contention that the documents found during the search did not belong to the Assessee, and thus, the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was unsustainable. The ITAT also noted the absence of a satisfaction note by the assessing officer of the searched person, which was essential for initiating proceedings under Section 153C, as per the established legal requirement. 2. Validity of additions made in non-abated assessments: The ITAT held that the additions made in non-abated assessments were invalid. The Revenue's contention that the assessing officer of the searched person and the Assessee being the same negated the need for a satisfaction note was rejected. The court emphasized that the satisfaction of the assessing officer of the searched person is a sine qua non for commencing proceedings under Section 153C. The ITAT found that the documents seized during the search did not belong to the Assessee but were part of the records of SVP Builders India Ltd., thus invalidating the additions made. 3. Whether the findings of the ITAT are perverse: The Revenue argued that the findings of the ITAT were perverse. However, the court upheld the ITAT's findings, noting that the documents in question did not belong to the Assessee and the necessary satisfaction note was not recorded by the assessing officer of the searched person. The court referenced the Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. case, which clarified that the expression 'belongs to' must not be confused with 'relates to'. The court concluded that the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C was without jurisdiction, and thus, the ITAT's findings were not perverse. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeals, finding no substantial question of law arising from the issues raised by the Revenue. The ITAT's decision that the proceedings under Section 153C were without jurisdiction was upheld, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.
|
