9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 614X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le examining the seized documents of the group, certain documents pertaining to Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, the assessee were found. The Assessing Officer of the searched person recorded his satisfaction on 05.02.2021 that these documents did not belong to the searched person and belongs to the assessee, the person other than searched person. The Assessing Officer of the assessee also recorded his satisfaction on 05.02.2024 that action u/s 153C is attracted. Subsequently, the case was transferred to Central Circle 30. Accordingly, notice u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A was issued on 05.02.2021. In response, the assessee filed its original return of income. Notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. In response, ld. AR for the assessee attended the proceedings and submitted relevant information as called for. 3. The Assessing Officer, during assessment proceedings, observed that the assessee organised marriage function of his daughter and it was contracted to Seven Seas Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.. During the course of search, at the premises of Seven Seas Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Annexure A-25 was found and seized. As per one of the images found from the Hard Disk, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d document cannot be partly genuine. Therefore, the amount of cash mentioned in the seized document is also true. Accordingly, he proceeded to make the addition of Rs. 31,85,000/- i.e. the difference of amount mentioned in the said slip less the payment made by cheque (Rs.46,15,000/- - Tax - Cheque payment). 7. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)-30, New Delhi and filed detailed submissions before the ld. CIT (A). After considering the submissions of the assessee, ld. CIT (A) dismissed the grounds challenging the proceedings u/s 153C of the Act, challenging the validity of the assessment order completed in violation of provisions of section 153D and sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 8. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal :- "1. The impugned order of Ld. CIT (A) and the assessment order by the Ld. AO both are unsustainable in law as the same are outcome of assessment proceedings initiated u/s 153C of IT Act without complying with mandatory requirement u/s 153A r.w.s. 153C of IT Act. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred both in law and in facts of the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... requirement of section 153C(1) of the Act, necessary satisfaction has been recorded. The Ld CIT(A) has on the basis of the enquiry conducted with the AO held that both the satisfaction notes were framed on 05.02.2021 and this factual finding is based on the records submitted by the Ld AO during appeal proceedings. It is not in dispute that satisfaction notes provided to the Ld AO during assessment proceedings are the same which were provided through email by the Ld AO to the counsel on email id [email protected] 27.02.2021 and none of the documents had any date mentioned thereon. On the basis of communication on 27.02.2021, the undated document could not be treated to have been framed on the date earlier than the date of communication i.e. 27.02.2021. If that be the case, the same may be treated as executed post issue of notice u/s 153C dated 05.02.2021. The Ld CIT(A) was not entitled to the date put up by the office of Ld AO post sharing of the same to the appellant through email on 27.02.2021. The Ld CIT(A) has allowed the department an opportunity to fiddle with the records by making them aware that the satisfaction provided to the appellant was undated. Merel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ument must be seized or requisitioned for the relevant assessment year for issue of notice u/s 153C of the Act."Further, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in para 31 has held in the case of Index Security Pvt. Ltd 86 taxmann.com 84 (Del) as follows:, "As regards the section jurisdictional requirement viz., that the seized documents must be incriminating and must relate to the A.Ys. whose assessments are sought to be reopened, the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune Vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society (supra) settles the issue and holds this to be an essential requirement. The decision of this Court in CIT -7 Vs RRJ Securities (2016) 380 ITR 612 (Del) and ARN Infrastructure India Ltd. Vs ACIT [2017] 394 ITR 569 (Del) also held that, in order to justify the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C of the Act the documents seized must be incriminating and must relate to each of the AYs whose assessments are sought to be reopened." The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Saksham Commodities Ltd. v. CIT, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2551, decided on 9-4-2024 held that mere existence of a power to assess or reassess the six AYs' immediately preceding the AY corre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the assessment order u/s 153C impugned in the present appeal need be quashed in view of the acceptance of the order of Karnataka High Court in Dy CIT vs Sunil Kumar Sharma(supra). The validity of the satisfaction note can also be judged on the basis of the fact incorporated therein. The perusal of the satisfaction note will show that significantly important date which is the sole premise on which the satisfaction has been framed is the date of function. As per the satisfaction note, the marriage function on behalf of the appellant was on 30.06.2017 and there was detail of the actual expenditure in the hard disk pertaining to the function allegedly held on behalf of the appellant on that date. But from the fact available on record, i.e. the invoice of the organizer(PB 28), the searched person M/s Seven Seas Hospitality P Ltd, the marriage function in the appellant's family took place on 19.06.2017 not on 30.06.2017 as claimed in the satisfaction note and therefore, the estimate of the expenses related to function dated 30.06.2017 does not relate to the function held for the daughter of the appellant. This fact has been ignored by the Ld AO while recording satisfaction and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e took place on 19.06.2017 has been reiterated and taken note of by Ld CIT(A) on page 14 in para (v), page 17 in para (iv) and page 24 in para 1therein. Without prejudice to above, the two amounts of Rs. 10,00,000/- each have been stated to have been paid by the appellant on 02.04.2016 and 25.05.2016 which is the part of the amount of Rs. 34,00,000/- added in hands of the appellant. If that is the case, the year of taxation of above payments should have been AY 2017-18 and not AY 2018-19. Kindly refer para 8 at page 4 of AO order and the same have been taken note of Ld CIT(A) in para 15 at page 29. In addition to above, the appellant seeks to submit that the undisputed fact emerging from above facts is that the basis of assumption of jurisdiction is the date/image taken from the electronic source. The reliance of such a material requires mandatory compliance in terms of sec 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872. The provisions of Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 avers the conditions subject to which the electronic record is admissible as evidence. The Section specifies that any information contained in electronic record which is printed on paper, stored, recorded or copied in opti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of Rs. 32,15,000/- considering the total estimated cost of Rs. 44,15,000/-. We observed that the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer has got two flaws - one is date of marriage and the second is the finalized amount of marriage function hall. The initial estimate provided by Seven Seas Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. was Rs. 44,15,000/- and the actual settlement was made at Rs. 32,15,000/-. There is no reason for the Assessing Officer to record the satisfaction for Rs. 44,15,000. The whole assessment was framed only on the abovesaid flawed recording of satisfaction. Further we observed that the emerging fact on record is that the basis of assumption of jurisdiction is the date/marriage taken from the electronic source. The reliance of such a material requires mandatory compliance in terms of section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872. Whether the abovesaid evidence is admissible as evidence or not is the issue under consideration. On enquiry with the ld. DR of the Revenue, it was submitted that there is no certificate available on assessment record. These are basic requirement while recording the satisfaction note that the Assessing Officer should have obtained a certificate verifyin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
