9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 551X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 06.2015, the requirement is that even an information contained in the documents seized, if pertains to or relates to a person other than the searched person, the requirement of Section 153C(1) can be held to be fulfilled. In view of the categorical statement in the satisfaction note of the searched person forwarded by the AO of the searched person to the Assessing Officer of the petitioner assessee, it cannot be assumed that no prima facie satisfaction of the seized material being pertain to the petitioner assessee could be recorded. Having gone through the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Super Malls (P) Limited [ 2020 (3) TMI 361 - SUPREME COURT ] we find that the observations made therein with regard to the mandatory requirement of Section 153C to record a satisfaction note by the AO of the petitioner assessee herein, before issuing notice u/s 153C of the Act has been fulfilled in the facts of the instant case. Having noted the fact that the satisfaction note of the AO of the petitioner assessee has not been brought on record and moreover, the assessment note of the AO of the searched person indicates a prima facie case of inquiry against the petitioner, we do not find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision of the Assessing Officer in the proceedings under Section 153C. WP dismissed. - HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE Appearance: For the Petitioner(s) No. 1 : Mr RK Patel, Sr. Adv. with Darshan R Patel(8486) For the Respondent(s) No. 2 : None For the Respondent(s) No. 1 : MR. Varun K. Patel(3802) CAV JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL) 1. At the outset, we may record that Special Civil Application No. 436 of 2024, in this bunch, is being detagged as the facts therein are somewhat different. In the remaining bunch of writ petitions, challenge is to the notice dated 06.5.2022 for the Assessment Year 2014-15, (in short A.Y. 2014-15), issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short as the Act 1961) as also the order dated 02.12.2023 of rejection of the objection filed by the petitioners herein. Further challenge is to the notice dated 11.12.2023 under Section 142(1) of the Act 1961. The prayer is to restrain the respondents from enforcing the compliance of the impugned notice under Section 153C dated 06.05.2022 for A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The grounds to challenge the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act 1961. The satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer of the petitioner assessee being a carbon copy of the satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer of the searched person, failed to fullfil the jurisdictional requirement. The Assessing Officer, thus, lacked jurisdiction to proceed under Section 153C by issuing notice dated 06.05.2022 and the resultant assessment proceedings for AY 2014-15 based on the said notice are liable to be quashed. 5. The copy of the satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer of the searched person covered under Section 153A of the Act 1961 with the covering letter dated 07.04.2022 for initiation of assessment proceedings under Section 153C of the Act 1961 proposed against the petitioner assessee is appended with the writ petition. A perusal of the said document indicates that during the course of search, on the submission made by the searched person, it was found that Survey No. 287 was sold by the searched person to the petitioner herein by a document, namely Sale Deed Register No. 1616 dated 21.08.2019. On consideration of the rate for the land at Survey No. 287, on the statement recorded of the searched person, it was found prima facie that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lhi High Court in the said case was as to whether the seized material during the course of the search, could be said to belong to the assessee. The said case pertains to the period prior to the amendment of Section 153C of the Act 1961 by the Finance Act, 2015 with effect from 01.06.2015. The satisfaction notes in the said case were prepared on 13/19.03.2014. In the facts and circumstances of the said case, it was noted by the Delhi High Court that from the documents seized and referred in the satisfaction notes, it may be said to pertain to the assessee, but it cannot be presumed to belong to the assessee, the person other than the searched person. It was then recorded that the Assessing Officer of the assessee ( other than the searched person) recorded as verbatim, the satisfaction as recorded by the Assessing Officer of the searched person word by word, without going through the material with regard to his satisfaction that the documents seized belong to the other person and the said documents do not belong to other person, hence, the jurisdictional requirement under Section 153C(1) of the Act 1961 of the Assessing Officer of the searched person having to be satisfied that the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... noted that in the said case, the Assessing Officer of the assessee and the Assessing Officer of the searched person was the same and, therefore, the satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer of the searched person, as in the said case there was no question of transmitting the documents so seized from the searched person to another Assessing Officer as he himself was the Assessing Officer of the searched person as well as the Assessing Officer of the assessee. Therefore, there was a sufficient compliance of the requirements under Section 153C of the Act. The question posed for consideration by the Apex Court as to whether there is a compliance of the provision of Section 153C of the Act by the Assessing Officer and all the conditions which are required to be fulfilled before initiating the proceedings under Section 153C of the Act have been satisfied or not, was answered in favour of the Revenue having noted that it is sufficient for the Assessing Officer to note in the satisfaction note that the documents seized from the searched person belonged to the other person. 10. Having gone through the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Super Malls (P) Limited (supra), we find that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner in this regard. 14. For the remaining grounds that the allegations against the petitioner are baseless or there was no incriminating material against the petitioner, we may note the decision of the Apex Court relied on by that learned Counsel for the Revenue in the case of Commissioner of Income- Tax, Gujarat vs. Vijaybhai N. Chandrani, [2013] 35 taxmann.com 580(SC), wherein the Apex Court has held that at the stage of issuance of notice under Section 153C, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition and relegated the assessee to file reply to the said notices and upon receipt of a decision from the Assessing Officer, if for any reason, it was aggrieved by the said decision, to question the same before the forum provided under the Act. 15. Lastly on the question of delay agitated in the writ petition, no submission has been made by the learned Senior Counsel and as such the same is not being dealt with. 16. We may further note that no jurisdictional error could be found in the decision of the Assessing Officer in the proceedings under Section 153C of the Act 1961 and the points raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner assessee on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
