2025 (1) TMI 240 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - Validity of assessment framed u/sec.153C - consolidated satisfaction note has been prepared for many assessment years - HELD THAT - Since in the instant case a consolidated satisfaction note has been prepared for assessment years 2012-2013 to 2018-2019, therefore, the consolidation satisfaction note being not in accordance with law, therefore, the entire assessment proceedings is liable to be quashed. We hold accordingly and quash the assessment. There is also no dispute to the fact that two searches have taken place and there is only one satisfaction note i.e., a combined satisfaction note in the case of Yuvraj Dhamale Group of cases has been recorded, on the basis of which, notice u/sec.153C was issued to the assessee. However, no separate satisfaction note was recorded in the case of Shri Sachin Nahar that any books of account or documents seized or requisitioned pertains or pertain to or any information contained therein relates to the assessee. Therefore, no addition could have been made in the hands of the assessee without resorting to the provisions of either sec.147/148 or sec.153C of the Act. Once the assessment framed u/sec.153C r.w.s.143(3) is held to be void being not in accordance with law on account of a combined satisfaction note for assessment years 2012-2013 to 2018-2019 instead of separate satisfaction note, no addition could have been made in the hands of the assessee on the basis of the email dated 19.03.2021 without issuing a separate notice u/sec.153C or resorting to provisions of sec.148. Therefore, we do not find any error in the order of the Assessing Officer. For invoking the provisions of sec.263 of the Act, the twin conditions i.e., the assessment order must be erroneous and the order is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue must be satisfied as held in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd 2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT - In the instant case, the order is certainly not erroneous, even though it may be prejudice to the interest of the Revenue. Therefore, the twin conditions are not satisfied and the PCIT, in our opinion, cannot invoke the provisions of sec.263 - Decided in favour of assessee.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The legal judgment primarily revolves around the following core issues:

Whether the assessment order passed under section 153C read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2017-2018, was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, thereby justifying the invocation of section 263 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT).
Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to conduct necessary inquiries and verification regarding the unsecured cash loan and interest payments made by the assessee, as required under the provisions of the Income Tax Act.
Whether the combined satisfaction note recorded for multiple assessment years was valid under section 153C, or if it vitiated the entire assessment proceedings.
Whether the absence of a separate satisfaction note in the case of Shri Sachin Nahar affected the validity of the assessment order.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of the Assessment Order under Section 153C

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 153C of the Income Tax Act allows for the assessment of income of a person other than the one searched, based on documents or assets seized. The provision requires a satisfaction note to be recorded for each assessment year. The precedents cited include decisions from the Karnataka High Court and the Supreme Court, which emphasize the necessity of individual satisfaction notes for each assessment year.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that a combined satisfaction note for multiple assessment years was not in accordance with the law. The absence of separate satisfaction notes for each year rendered the assessment proceedings invalid.
Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal noted that the satisfaction note was a combined one for assessment years 2012-2013 to 2018-2019, which was contrary to the legal requirement of separate notes for each year.
Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the legal requirement of separate satisfaction notes to the facts of the case, concluding that the combined note invalidated the assessment proceedings.
Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal considered the arguments of the Revenue, which relied on the email and the information from the search on Shri Sachin Nahar, but found them insufficient without proper procedural compliance.
Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the assessment order was void due to procedural lapses in recording satisfaction notes.

Issue 2: Invocation of Section 263 by the PCIT

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 263 allows the PCIT to revise an assessment order if it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. case establishes that both conditions must be met.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that the assessment order was not erroneous, even if it might be prejudicial to the Revenue, because the procedural requirements under section 153C were not met.
Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal noted the absence of separate satisfaction notes and the lack of inquiry into the alleged cash loan and interest payments.
Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the twin conditions of section 263 to the facts, determining that the order was not erroneous, thus invalidating the PCIT's revision.
Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal addressed the Revenue's arguments regarding the alleged cash loan and interest payments but found them procedurally unsupported.
Conclusions: The Tribunal set aside the PCIT's order, allowing the assessee's appeal.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "Satisfaction note is required to be recorded under section 153C of the IT Act for each Assessment Year and in the impugned proceedings, a consolidated satisfaction note has been recorded for different Assessment Years, which also vitiates the entire assessment proceedings."
Core principles established: The necessity of individual satisfaction notes for each assessment year under section 153C; the requirement that both conditions of section 263 must be met for its invocation.
Final determinations on each issue: The Tribunal quashed the assessment order due to procedural lapses and set aside the PCIT's order under section 263, allowing the appeal in favor of the assessee.

← Previous Next →