9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (3) TMI 1214 - AT - Income TaxAssessment u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A - addition on account of disallowance of Long Term Capital Gain held as bogus and sham transaction - HELD THAT - The entire exercise of the AO is based on the regular return filed and no material found and seized during the course of search was referred. This being so in our opinion no addition could be made in the order passed u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act. This view is duly supported by the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell 2023 (4) TMI 1056 - SUPREME COURT in respect of completed/unabated assessments no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search u/s 132 or requisition u/s 132A - the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened by the AO in exercise of powers under Sections 147/148 of the Act subject to fulfilment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned under sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved. Thus no addition could be made de-hors seized material therefore the addition made is herby deleted. Decided in favour of assessee. Legality of assessment completed u/s 143(3) - The assessment order under appeal i.e. A.Y. 2015-16 notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 24.11.2016 i.e. after the date of recording of satisfaction note u/s 153C in the case of the assessee. Since satisfaction note for initiation of proceedings u/s 153C was recorded on 10.11.2016 in the case of the assessee in view of the proviso of 153C(1) the date of search would be the date when the seized material was handed over to the AO of assessee satisfaction note is recorded i.e. on 10.11.2016 thus the search year would be A.Y.2017-18 and six years for which proceedings 153C could be initiated were AY 2011-12 to AY 2016-17. AY 2015-16 i.e. year before us also fallen within the block period of six years therefore the assessment for AY 2015-16 must be completed u/s 153C and not u/s 143(3) of the Act therefore the orders so passed u/s 143(3) is bad in law. As in the case of Jasjit Singh 2015 (8) TMI 982 - DELHI HIGH COURT has expressed the similar view and the said order is affirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court also. ITAT Delhi in the case of Raja Varshney 2024 (9) TMI 1625 - ITAT DELHI and Akansha Gupta 2024 (7) TMI 1133 - ITAT DELHI also expressed the same view - As the assessment completed u/s 143(3) for A.Y.2015-16 is bad in law and therefore is quashed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal include: 1. Whether the notice issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was valid and within jurisdiction. 2. Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 153C read with Section 153A, based on alleged bogus long-term capital gains and commission expenses, were justified. 3. The legality of the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) for Assessment Year 2015-16, considering the applicability of Section 153C proceedings. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Validity of Notice under Section 153C - Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 153C of the Income Tax Act deals with assessments in cases where documents or assets seized during a search pertain to a person other than the searched party. The legal framework requires a satisfaction note to be recorded by the AO that the seized material pertains to the assessee. - Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the AO did not record separate satisfaction notes for each assessment year within the block period, nor was there any separate approval under Section 153D for each year. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., which held that no addition could be made in the absence of incriminating material found during the search. - Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal observed that the AO made additions based on the regular return filed by the assessee, without referring to any incriminating material found during the search. - Application of Law to Facts: Since no incriminating material was found or referred to by the AO, the Tribunal concluded that the additions made under Section 153C were not justified. - Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal considered the arguments of the Department, which supported the AO's actions, but ultimately found them unpersuasive in light of the legal precedents. - Conclusions: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's legal grounds of appeal, holding that the notice under Section 153C was invalid, and the additions made were to be deleted. Issue 2: Additions under Section 153C read with Section 153A - Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The legal provisions under Section 153C read with Section 153A allow for assessments based on incriminating material found during a search. - Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized that the AO's additions were based on regular return information rather than any incriminating material found during the search, which contravenes the requirements for additions under these sections. - Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that the AO's reliance on regular return data without incriminating evidence was insufficient for making additions. - Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the Supreme Court's guidance from Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., which clarified that additions in the absence of incriminating material are not permissible. - Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal considered the Department's defense of the AO's actions but found it lacking due to the absence of incriminating material. - Conclusions: The Tribunal deleted the additions made by the AO, as they were not supported by incriminating evidence. Issue 3: Legality of Assessment Order under Section 143(3) - Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 143(3) relates to regular assessment orders, while Section 153C pertains to assessments based on search-related findings. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Jasjit Singh, which clarified the jurisdictional requirements. - Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the assessment for AY 2015-16 should have been completed under Section 153C, given the timing of the satisfaction note and the block period involved. - Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that the AO issued a notice under Section 143(2) after recording the satisfaction note under Section 153C, indicating a jurisdictional error. - Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal concluded that the assessment order under Section 143(3) was without jurisdiction and therefore invalid. - Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal considered the Department's support for the AO's actions but found them inconsistent with the legal framework and precedents. - Conclusions: The Tribunal quashed the assessment order under Section 143(3) as it was not in accordance with the jurisdictional requirements. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS - The Tribunal held that no additions could be made under Section 153C read with Section 153A in the absence of incriminating material found during a search. This aligns with the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. - The Tribunal concluded that the assessment order under Section 143(3) for AY 2015-16 was invalid due to jurisdictional errors, as the assessment should have been conducted under Section 153C. - The Tribunal's decision reinforced the principle that assessments in search cases must be based on incriminating material, and jurisdictional requirements must be strictly adhered to. - The appeals were allowed, resulting in the deletion of the additions and quashing of the assessment order under Section 143(3).
|
