2017 (2) TMI 553 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of proceedings under Section 153C - addition u/s 69C - Held that - The Revenue has to strictly comply with Section 153C of the Act. We are of the view that non satisfaction of the condition precedent viz. the seized document must belong to the respondent assessee is a jurisdictional issue and non satisfaction thereof would make the entire proceedings taken thereunder null and void. The issue of Section 69C of the Act can only arise for consideration if the proceedings under Section 153C of the Act are upheld. Therefore in the present facts the issue of Section 69C of the Act is academic. In view of the above reasons and particularly the finding of fact that seized document which forms the basis of the present proceedings do not belong to the petitioner and the same not being shown to be perverse - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues involved:
- Interpretation of Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961
- Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings under Section 153C
- Validity of impugned order of the Tribunal
- Compliance with Section 153C requirements
- Applicability of Section 69C of the Act

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment involves two appeals challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal related to assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The central question raised is whether the Tribunal was justified in interpreting Section 153C of the Act narrowly and mechanically, leading to the deletion of additions made under Section 69C of the Act. The appeals concern two respondents who were part of a group involved in land acquisition.

2. The undisputed facts reveal that a search and seizure action was conducted under Section 132 of the Act, leading to the discovery of documents in the possession of an individual managing land acquisition. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under Section 153C based on these documents, targeting the two respondents involved in the present appeals.

3. The Tribunal's order found that the seized documents did not belong to the respondents, thereby concluding that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to proceed under Section 153C. It was held that satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable as the documents did not pertain to the respondents. The Tribunal's decision was based on the requirement that seized documents must belong to the assessee for proceedings under Section 153C to be valid.

4. The Revenue contended that the respondents and the individual in possession of the documents were colluding in land acquisition, justifying the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C. However, the Tribunal's order emphasized the jurisdictional aspect, stating that non-compliance with the condition that seized documents must belong to the assessee renders the proceedings null and void.

5. The judgment highlighted the importance of strict compliance with Section 153C, noting that the absence of the jurisdictional requirement renders the proceedings invalid. The issue of Section 69C could only be considered if the proceedings under Section 153C were upheld, making the former issue academic in the present context.

6. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeals, emphasizing that the seized documents forming the basis of the proceedings did not belong to the respondents. As such, the question raised did not give rise to any substantial legal issue warranting further consideration. The judgment concluded without any order as to costs.