9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 898X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... “belong” to the person who holds the originals - Possession of documents and possession of photocopies of documents are two separate things - While the Jaipuria Group may be the owner of the photocopies of the documents it is quite possible that the originals may be owned by some other person - unless it is established that the documents do not belong to the searched person, the question of invoking Section 153C of the said Act does not arise. The AO should not confuse the expression “belongs to” with the expressions “relates to” or “refers to” - none of the three sets of documents – copies of preference shares, unsigned leaves of cheque books and the copy of the supply and loan agreement – can be said to “belong to” the petitioner - the ingredients of Section 153C of the Act have not been satisfied - thus, the notice issued u/s 153C is set aside – Decided in favour of Assessee. - WP (C) No. 414 of 2014 & CM No.822 of 2014, WP (C) No.566 of 2014 & CM No.1149 of 2014 WP (C) No.567 of 2014 & CM No.1150 of 2014 WP (C) No.572 of 2014 & CM No.1156 of 2014 WP (C) No.573 of 2014 & CM No.1157 of 2014 WP (C) No.574 of 2014 & CM No.115 - - - Dated:- 14-8-2014 - Badar Durrez Ahmed And ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on in the matters before us. In the judgement delivered on 07.08.2014 in the case of Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. (supra), after examining the provisions of Sections 153C, 132(4A)(i) 292C(1)(i) of the said Act, this Court had observed as under: 6. On a plain reading of Section 153C, it is evident that the Assessing Officer of the searched person must be satisfied that inter alia any document seized or requisitioned belongs to a person other than the searched person. It is only then that the Assessing Officer of the searched person can handover such document to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person (other than the searched person). Furthermore, it is only after such handing over that the Assessing Officer of such other person can issue a notice to that person and assess or re-assess his income in accordance with the provisions of Section 153A. Therefore, before a notice under Section 153C can be issued two steps have to be taken. The first step is that the Assessing Officer of the person who is searched must arrive at a clear satisfaction that a document seized from him does not belong to him but to some other person. The second step is after such s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned counsel for the Revenue before us. Those decisions are Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Patel v. Commissioner of Income Tax: (2013) 214 Taxman 558; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Classic Enterprises: (2013) 358 ITR 465 and a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in SSP Aviation Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax: (2012) 346 ITR 177. This Court had indicated in its judgement in Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. (supra) that the case of Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Patel (supra) was distinguishable on facts. Those observations would apply to the present writ petitions also. As regards the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Classic Enterprises (supra), this Court had indicated that it could not agree with the conclusions and observations of the Allahabad High Court inasmuch as the decision of the Allahabad High Court was premised on a consideration of the provisions of Section 158BD of the said Act which are entirely different from the provisions of Section 153C of the said Act. Furthermore, with regard to the decision in SSP Aviation Ltd. (supra), this court had noted that the said decision does not militate against the view taken in Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 6. The learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Sarvesh Kumar Agarwal (supra) is to be found in paragraph 20 thereof where it has been observed that the assessee established that the seized silver belongs to M/s. Sarvesh Jewellers, Bareilly the petitioner. In other words, the person from whom the bullion was seized was able to establish that it did not belong to him but to Sarvesh Jewellers. It is in that context that the provisions of Section 153C of the Act were invoked inasmuch as the Assessing Officer would then be considered as having been satisfied that the bullion which was seized from the searched person did not belong to the searched person but to some other person (in that case M/s. Sarvesh Jewellers, Bareilly). 8. From the foregoing discussion it is evident that in order that the Assessing Officer of the searched person comes to the satisfaction that documents or materials found during the search belong to a person other than the searched person, it is necessary that he arrives at the satisfaction that the said documents or materials do not belong to the searched person. We may point out that in the course of the arguments we had asked the learned counsel for the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -2/A-14/64 This is a cheque of ₹ 54691818/- in favour of Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. issued by M/s SMV Agencies Pvt. Ltd. on 30/6/2012. B-2/A-14/65 This is the cheque of ₹ 60000000/- in favour of Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. issued by M/s SMV Agencies Pvt. Ltd. on 31.05.2012. B-2/A-14/66 This is the cheque of ₹ 60000000/- in favour of Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. issued by M/s SMV Agencies Pvt. Ltd. on 30.04.2012. B-2/A-14/67 This is the cheque of ₹ 60000000/- in favour of Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. issued by M/s SMV Agencies Pvt. Ltd. on 30/06/2011. B-2/A-14/68 This is the cheque of ₹ 60000000/- in favour of Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. issued by M/s SMV Agencies Pvt. Ltd. dated: 30/04/2011. B-2/A-14/69 This is the cheque of ₹ 60000000/- in favour of Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. issued by M/s SMV Agencies Pvt. Ltd. dated: 30/6/2010. B-2/A-14/70 This is the cheque of ₹ 60000000/- i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the copies. It was also contended by the petitioner in the objections that the unsigned cheques could, by no stretch of imagination, belong to the petitioner as they had not even been handed over to the petitioner and were to be found in the cheque books of the Jaipuria Group companies themselves. Insofar as the copy of the Supply and Loan Agreement was concerned, the petitioner pointed out that the copy that was found in the possession of the Jaipuria Group belonged to the Jaipuria Group whereas the original which belonged to the petitioner was with the petitioner. Therefore, it was contended that none of the documents found during the course of searches conducted on the Jaipuria Group which find mention in the Satisfaction Note dated 29.07.2013, could be said to have belonged to the petitioner. Consequently, it was urged that the proceedings under Section 153C of the said Act ought to be dropped. 12. However, by virtue of the order dated 02.12.2013, the Assessing Officer rejected each one of these objections and observed that the provisions of Section 153C of the said Act had been rightly invoked and the petitioner was directed to comply with the assessment proceedings under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. 16. Thirdly, we would also like to make it clear that the assessing officers should not confuse the expression belongs to with the expressions relates to or refers to . A registered sale deed, for example, belongs to the purchaser of the property although it obviously relates to or refers to the vendor. In this example if the purchasers premises are searched and the registered sale deed is seized, it cannot be said that it belongs to the vendor just because his name is mentioned in the document. In the converse case if the vendor s premises are searched and a copy of the sale deed is seized, it cannot be said that the said copy belongs to the purchaser just because it refers to him and he (the purchaser) holds the original sale deed. In this light, it is obvious that none of the three sets of documents copies of preference shares, unsigned leaves of cheque books and the copy of the supply and loan agreement can be said to belong to the petitioner. 17. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find that the ingredients of Section 153C of the said Act have been satisfied in this case. Consequently the notices dated 02.08.2013 issued under Section 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
