TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeals allowed due to lack of recorded satisfaction by Assessing Officer</h1> <h3>S. Satyanarayana, M. Surendranath, Syed Rafiuddin, Mahita Prasad Cadell, Dr. P.S. Prasad, Sunita Prasad, L. Reena Peterson, L. Preetha Priyadarshini, Dr. P.S. Prasad, Mahita Prasad Cadell Versus ACIT, Central Circle-3, Hyderabad</h3> The appeals were allowed as the Assessing Officer did not record satisfaction that the income related to seized material belonged to the assessees, ... Assessment u/s 153C - Held that:- No hesitation in holding that the A.O. of the person searched has not recorded any satisfaction that the income relatable to the seized material belongs to the assessees herein. Therefore, the assessments are quashed. Rectification of mistake - Held that:- Since the very basis i.e., the assessments under section 143(3) read with section 153C of the I.T. Act have been quashed, the order passed by the A.O. u/s. 154 has no legs to stand. Therefore, the appeals against the order of the CIT(A) confirming the order of the A.O. under section 154 are also quashed as having no basis. Issues:1. Disallowances and additions made by the A.O. under section 143(3) read with section 153C of the I.T. Act.2. Validity of the proceedings under section 153C of the I.T. Act.3. Invocation of provisions of section 153C without recording satisfaction.4. Assessment orders under section 143(3) read with section 153C challenged.5. Recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer.6. Quashing of assessments.7. Rectification of assessment order under section 154 of the I.T. Act.Analysis:1. The appeals were filed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming disallowances and additions made by the A.O. under section 143(3) read with section 153C of the I.T. Act. The assessees challenged the additions and the validity of proceedings under section 153C. Grounds 16 and 17 raised legal issues regarding the invocation of section 153C without recording satisfaction. The additional grounds of appeal were admitted based on legal precedents.2. The proceedings under section 153C were initiated based on material seized during search operations in cases related to MBS Jewellers P. Ltd. The order sheet entries indicated the initiation of proceedings without satisfaction that the income belonged to the assessees. Citing a judgment, it was emphasized that satisfaction by the Assessing Officer is crucial before invoking jurisdiction under section 153C.3. Relying on the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court, it was concluded that the Assessing Officer of the searched person did not record satisfaction that the income related to seized material belonged to the assessees. Consequently, the assessments were quashed based on the absence of recorded satisfaction, following the legal precedent.4. Appeals were also filed against the A.O.'s order under section 154 rectifying the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 153C. Since the assessments under section 143(3) read with section 153C were quashed, the basis for the A.O.'s order under section 154 was eliminated, leading to the quashing of appeals against the CIT(A)'s order confirming the A.O.'s order under section 154.5. Ultimately, all appeals of the assessees were allowed based on the findings related to the absence of recorded satisfaction by the Assessing Officer and the consequent quashing of assessments. The judgments were pronounced in open court on a specified date.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
