9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 852X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d u/s 153C on 19th November 2010. This was long prior to 1st June, 2015 and, therefore, Section 153C as it stood at the relevant time applied. The change brought about prospectively with effect from 1st June, 2015 by the amended Section 153C (1) did not apply to the search in the instant case. Therefore, the onus was on the Revenue to show that the incriminating material/documents recovered at the time of search belongs to the Assessee. It is not enough for the Revenue to show that the documents either pertain to the Assessee or contains information that relates to the Assessee. Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - relevance of document seized in search of other persons for the purposes of determining escapement of income - can statement given in search be documents belong to other assessee to confer jurisdiction u/s 153C? - HELD THAT: - In the present case, the Revenue is seeking to rely on three documents to justify the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153 C against the Assessee. Two of them, viz., the licence issued to the Assessee by the DTCP and the letter issued by the DTCP permitting it to transfer such licence, have no relevance for the purposes of determining escap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NLF). On account of failure on the part of the Assessee to establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the entry appearing in its books, the AO added the aforementioned sum to the income of the Assessee under Section 68 of the Act by the assessment order dated 28th December, 2007. 4. The appeal by the Assessee against the above assessment order was allowed by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals [CIT (A)] by an order dated 14th October, 2009. The reasoning given by the CIT (A) was that SNLF was an existing Assessee having a PAN and that, therefore, the identity of SNLF was not in doubt. The money had been received by cheque and the amounts had been utilised for making payments to the MCD authorities. Therefore, the transaction was genuine. The Assessee had provided a confirmatory letter as well as a copy of the bank account of SNLF. The amount had been received by cheques and the jurisdictional AO of SNLF had confirmed the said facts. It was further noted that the Assessee could not be fastened with the burden of proving credits in the accounts of SNLF. In other words, the Assessee could not be asked to prove the source of source. Accordingly, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case? 10. For the aforementioned purpose it must be noted that the satisfaction note of the AO for assumption of jurisdiction qua the Respondent Assessee under Section 153C of the Act read as under: A search and seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act was carried on 5.01.2009 at various business and residential premises of Taneja Puri Group of cases, Search and seizure proceedings were carried out at 9, K.G.Marg, New Delhi which is the residence of Sh. Ravinder Kumar Taneja director in various Taneja Group of companies. Various Taneja group of companies are also being run from the said premises. During the course of search at the said premises, various incriminating documents were found and seized. Annexure A-2 of seized documents contains a letter from Director Town and Country Planning, Haryana and Chandigarh addressed to the assessee company Dreamcity Buildwell P. Ltd. along with other associated person of the assessee group granting licence to the assessee company for setting up of a residential plotted colony on the land measuring 304.58 acres at Village Aterna, Nangal Ralan, Patla, Jakholi, and Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11. The ITAT correctly noted that two of the above documents referred to, viz., the licence issued to the Assessee by the Director, Town and Country Planning (DTCP), Haryana and the permission granted to it by the DTCP for transferring the said licence could not be said to be the documents that constituted incriminating evidence revealing any escapement of income. In this context reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 612 (Del) in which it was held that an AO would not proceed to commence an enquiry under Section 153C of the Act if it was apparent that the documents in question had no bearing on the income of the Assessee for the relevant AYs. As far as the statement of Mr. D. N. Taneja was concerned, the ITAT held that they it was not in any way connected with the undisclosed income of the Assessee. The offering of income of ₹ 6.23 crores for taxation by Mr. D. N. Taneja did not make any reference to the undisclosed income of the Assessee. 12. Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that while the two documents, viz., the licence issued to the Assessee by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 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 notice and assess or reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if, that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person 2for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made and for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub-section (1) of section 153A 15. It can straightaway be noticed that the crucial change is the substitution of the words books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned belongs to or belong to a person other than the person referred to in Section 153A by two clauses i.e. a and b, where clause b is in the alternative and provides t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on is that the said document belongs to that person. It is for the Assessing Officer to rebut that presumption and come to a conclusion or satisfaction that the document in fact belongs to somebody else. There must be some cogent material available with the Assessing Officer before he/she arrives at the satisfaction that the seized document does not belong to the searched person but to somebody else. Surmise and conjecture cannot take the place of satisfaction . 17. In the present case the search took place on 5th January 2009. Notice to the Assessee was issued under Section 153 C on 19th November 2010. This was long prior to 1st June, 2015 and, therefore, Section 153C of the Act as it stood at the relevant time applied. In other words, the change brought about prospectively with effect from 1st June, 2015 by the amended Section 153C (1) of the Act did not apply to the search in the instant case. Therefore, the onus was on the Revenue to show that the incriminating material/documents recovered at the time of search belongs to the Assessee. In other words, it is not enough for the Revenue to show that the documents either pertain to the Assessee or contains i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
