9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 7 - AT - Income TaxUndisclosed capital gain on sale of shares - assessment u/s 153C - Held that - Proceedings under section 153C of the Income Tax Act does not apply to the facts of the present case as the documents are not belonging to the assessee. - Decided against revenue
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notice issued under section 153C of the Income Tax Act. 2. Deletion of addition of ?4.5 crores made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of undisclosed capital gain on sale of shares. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of notice issued under section 153C of the Income Tax Act: The search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act was conducted in the "Gopal Zarda" Group of cases on 15.01.2009, during which certain documents belonging to the assessee were found. Consequently, notice under section 153C was issued to the assessee. The assessee filed returns, but the AO added undisclosed income from capital gain on the sale of shares of M/s. BahalSons Properties Pvt. Ltd. The assessee contested the validity of the notice under section 153C, arguing that no document or material belonging to the assessee was found during the search. The assessee also claimed that there was neither any "satisfaction" nor any "handing over" of seized material as required by section 153C. The assessee's objections were rejected by the AO. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, agreeing with the assessee that the documents did not belong to the assessee and there was no independent corroboration through documentary evidence or adverse statements by Shri Gopal Gupta, who had disclosed ?25 crores on account of investment in acquiring Hotel Grace Mount in December 2008. This finding was not specifically rebutted by the Revenue. The Tribunal referenced several decisions, including CIT vs. RRJ Securities Ltd., Pepsico India Holding (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, and Natural Products Bio-tech Ltd. vs. DCIT, which emphasized that the sine qua non for initiating action under section 153C is the recording of objective satisfaction that the seized documents belong to a person other than the one searched. The Tribunal concluded that there was no seized material belonging to the assessee, and the assessment under section 143(3) had already accepted the sale consideration per share. Therefore, the invocation of section 153C was invalid, and the assessment framed in furtherance of such invalid initiation was quashed as void ab initio. 2. Deletion of addition of ?4.5 crores made by the AO on account of undisclosed capital gain on sale of shares:The AO made an addition of ?4.5 crores as undisclosed capital gain on the sale of shares of BahalSons Properties Pvt. Ltd., based on documents seized during the search. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, and the Revenue appealed. The Tribunal noted that in the case of a family member of the assessee, the coordinate bench had already held that there was no seized material belonging to the assessee and that the assessment under section 143(3) had already accepted the sale consideration. Therefore, the invocation of section 153C was not valid. The Tribunal followed this precedent and confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, deleting the addition of ?4.5 crores in the hands of the assessee. The Tribunal also addressed the argument regarding the simultaneous initiation of proceedings under sections 153C and 148, noting that no special bench had been constituted to address this issue. The Tribunal reiterated that the coordinate bench had held that the proceedings under section 153C did not apply as the documents did not belong to the assessee, and thus, the objection raised by the Departmental Representative did not require adjudication. Conclusion:In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the cross objection of the assessee, holding that the invocation of section 153C was invalid and quashed the assessment framed in furtherance of such invalid initiation. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal regarding the deletion of ?4.5 crores was dismissed. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of seized material belonging to the assessee and the precedent set by the coordinate bench in a related case.
|
