9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 545X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... search in connection therewith. During the course of search proceedings, a loose paper pertaining to the assessee was seized from the father of the assessee. Accordingly, the AO initiated proceedings u/s 153C of the Act in the hands of the assessee. The seized document was a letter addressed by the assessee to a person named as Mrs. Priti with regard to the purchase of a property situated at Alibaugh. The said letter stated that purchase price of property was Rs. 20.22 crores and advance payment given to the owners as Rs. 3 crores. It was further stated that the balance payment was going to be made on the next day. Hence the AO asked the assessee to explain as to why the above said sum of Rs. 20.22 crores should not be assessed as income of the assessee. The assessee replied that the property was intended to be purchased by a friend named as Mr. Yogesh Shah and not by him. However, since the assessee did not furnish any confirmation letter from Mr.Yogesh Shah, the AO took the view that the total consideration mentioned in the loose sheet i.e. Rs. 20.22 crores is assessable in the hands of the assessee. In this regard, he took support from the provisions of section 132(4A) of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Pharmaceuticals & Biologicals Ltd (ITTA No.662 and 668 of 2014 dated 26.11.2014) (d) DSL Properties (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT (2012)(60 SOT 88)(Delhi) (e) Tanvir Collections (P) Ltd Vs. ACIT (168 TTJ (Del) 145) 7. On the contrary, the D.R submitted that the assessing officer of the searched person (Shri Jitendra Mehta) and the assessee herein (Shri Devan Mehta) are one and same person. He further submitted that the assessing officer has recorded satisfaction in the file of the assessee herein before issuing notice u/s 153C of the Act. Accordingly he submitted there was no requirement to record another satisfaction in the case of Shri Jitendra Mehta. He further submitted that the provisions of sec. 153C does not require recording of satisfaction and hence the satisfaction can be gathered from the seized material. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data Ltd (358 ITR 593)(SC). Accordingly he submitted that the satisfaction note recorded in the file of the assessee was sufficient compliance with the provisions of sec. 153C of the Act. 8. We heard the parties and perused the record. The assessing officer as well as the Ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f convenience:- "153C. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, Jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belongs to belong to a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person and that Assessing Officer shall proceed against each such other person and issue such other person notice and assess or reassess income of such other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A" A careful reading of the above said provision would show that the assessing officer of the person referred to in section 153A (i.e., person in whose hands search was conducted) should arrive at "Satisfaction" that the money, bullion etc. belong to a person other than the person in whose hands search was conducted. Naturally, the satisfaction should be arrived by the assessing officer while assessing the income of searched person. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... officer and the satisfaction note referred therein (supra) would show that the search took place on 06/10/2010 and the satisfaction note (titled as "Reasons for issuing notice u/s 153C of the I.T Act, 1961") was written on 07.02.2013, i.e., after expiry of more than 2 years. Further, there was no explanation as to why the assessment of the present assessee was centralized with the assessing officer of the searched person that too without arriving at the satisfaction that any of the seized material belong to the assessee herein. 13. The proposition discussed above finds support from the decision rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsi Foods P Ltd (supra). The following observations made in the above cited case are relevant here:- "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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing/assessing the searched person. In the absence of the same, the notice u/s 153C issued to the assessee herein is bad in law, against the statutory mandate and hence the same is liable to be quashed. Consequently, the impugned appellate and assessment order also are liable to be quashed. We order accordingly. 16. On merits also, we notice that the impugned document (Page 53 of Annexure-I) appears to be a letter written by the assessee to a person named Smt. Pritibhabhi. It talks about the payment of advance of Rs. 3.00 crores to the owners. It also talks about the receipt of money from Smt. Pritibhabhi to the tune of Rs. 1.52 crores. It further talks about a cheque in the name of Mr. Jitendra Mehta for a sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. It further states that the assessee herein is stating that "as per our discussion, I am making the entire payment tomorrow and taking the possession". A perusal of the above said document would show that the assessee Shri Deven Mehta has no where stated that the advance payment of Rs. 3.00 crores was made by him out of his own funds. On the contrary, it states that a cheque amount for Rs. 1.00 crore is in the name of Shri Jitendra Mehta. Thus, it only t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
