9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 811 - AT - Income TaxValidity of proceedings u/s. 153C - Held that - As can be seen from the satisfaction recorded by the AO while initiating proceedings u/s. 153C, there is neither any linking up of the documents nor any finding that certain seized documents pertain to assessee. Moreover, AO also has not recorded any satisfaction while initiating proceedings u/s. 153C. In view of this, we are of the opinion that there is no satisfaction recorded by the AO, as required under the provisions. Consequently, the proceedings u/s. 153C are not as per the provisions of the law. Following the principles laid down on this issue and on the facts of the case, we uphold the additional grounds raised. We, accordingly hold that the proceedings initiated u/s. 153C are bad in law. Since the very proceedings are held to be bad in law, there is no need to adjudicate all other grounds raised on merits. However, they are also considered allowed for statistical purposes. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of proceedings initiated under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act. 2. Absence of incriminating material found during the search. 3. Sustaining addition towards undisclosed profit. 4. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Proceedings Initiated Under Section 153C: The primary issue raised by the assessee was the validity of the proceedings initiated under Section 153C. The assessee argued that the action taken by the Assessing Officer (AO) in initiating proceedings under Section 153C was "bad in law" as no satisfaction was recorded by the AO having jurisdiction over the searched party, as required by law. The tribunal noted that Section 153C requires the AO to be satisfied that any seized material belongs to a person other than the one searched, and such material should be handed over to the AO having jurisdiction over that other person. The tribunal referenced the case of M/s. Shettys Pharmaceuticals & Biologicals Ltd., where the Hon'ble High Court of AP held that the satisfaction of the AO of the searched person and the AO of the other person is a pre-condition for invoking jurisdiction under Section 153C. The tribunal found that in this case, there was no satisfaction recorded by the AO, making the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C invalid. 2. Absence of Incriminating Material Found During the Search: The assessee contended that no incriminating materials were found during the search that justified the additions made. The tribunal highlighted that for proceedings under Section 153C, the existence of cogent and demonstrative material is essential. The tribunal observed that the order sheet did not indicate any specific incriminating material linked to the assessee. This absence of incriminating evidence further invalidated the proceedings under Section 153C. 3. Sustaining Addition Towards Undisclosed Profit: The assessee challenged the addition of ?5,27,500 towards undisclosed profit, arguing that the expenditure incurred for the development of land was ignored. The tribunal did not delve into the merits of this ground due to the invalidation of the proceedings under Section 153C. However, it noted that the evidence provided by the assessee, including confirmation letters and bank statements, should have been properly appreciated by the CIT(A). 4. Penalty Proceedings Under Section 271(1)(c): The assessee also argued that the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) should be dropped as there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The tribunal did not specifically address this ground due to the overarching decision that the proceedings under Section 153C were invalid. However, it implied that without valid proceedings, penalty proceedings would also lack a legal basis. Conclusion: The tribunal concluded that the proceedings initiated under Section 153C were "bad in law" due to the lack of satisfaction recorded by the AO, as mandated by the provisions of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the assessment framed under Section 153C was quashed. The tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, rendering the need to adjudicate other grounds on merits unnecessary. The order was pronounced on 10th August 2016.
|
