Income Tax Tribunal voids assessment under Section 153C, deems additions beyond scope

Lairy Distributors Pvt. Ltd., Balram Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Versus Dy. C.I.T., Central Circle-03, New Delhi And Sunny Infra Projects Ltd. Versus CIT (A) -XXVI, Delhi

Lairy Distributors Pvt. Ltd., Balram Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Versus Dy. C.I.T., Central Circle-03, New Delhi And Sunny Infra Projects Ltd. Versus CIT (A) -XXVI, ... Issues Involved:

1. Validity of initiation of proceedings and issuance of notice under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Jurisdictional issues related to the assessment under Section 153C.
3. Requirement of incriminating material for making additions under Section 153C.
4. Whether the documents mentioned in the satisfaction note belong to the assessee.
5. The impact of the absence of satisfaction recorded by the AO of the searched person.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Initiation of Proceedings and Issuance of Notice under Section 153C:

The appellants challenged the action of the AO initiating proceedings and issuance of notice under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal observed that the AO of the searched person must be satisfied that the seized material does not belong to the searched person. In the present case, the Tribunal noted that the satisfaction notes did not indicate that the seized documents did not belong to the searched person, Minda Group. The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pepsico India Holdings P. Ltd. vs. ACIT, which held that unless it is established that the documents do not belong to the searched person, the provisions of Section 153C do not get attracted. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings and issuance of notice under Section 153C was bad in law and void ab initio.

2. Jurisdictional Issues Related to the Assessment under Section 153C:

The Tribunal addressed the issue of whether the assessee is precluded from raising the jurisdictional issue at this stage. The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ramesh D. Patel, which held that Section 124 pertains to territorial jurisdiction and not to the inherent jurisdiction for passing an order of assessment under Section 153A. The Tribunal also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of S.S. Ahluwalia, which held that Section 124 has applicability to only territorial jurisdiction issues and not to other jurisdictional issues when there is inherent lack of jurisdiction. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the assessee is not precluded from raising the jurisdictional issue at this stage.

3. Requirement of Incriminating Material for Making Additions under Section 153C:

The Tribunal considered whether there is a requirement of incriminating material for making additions under Section 153C. The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, which held that although Section 153A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence found in the course of the search, it does not mean that the assessment can be arbitrary or made without any relevance or nexus with the seized material. The Tribunal observed that in the absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment can be reiterated, and the abated assessment or reassessment can be made. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were beyond the scope of assessment as no addition was made on the basis of seized documents recorded in the satisfaction note.

4. Whether the Documents Mentioned in the Satisfaction Note Belong to the Assessee:

The Tribunal analyzed whether the documents mentioned in the satisfaction note belong to the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the documents mentioned in the satisfaction notes were mainly copies of the return, balance sheet, trial balance sheet, and other financial statements which were related to A.Y 2011-12 and not pertaining to either A.Y 2006-07 or 2007-08. The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pepsico India Holdings P. Ltd. vs. ACIT, which held that the possession of documents and possession of photocopies of documents are two separate things. The Tribunal held that the photocopies of the balance sheet, trial balance, and other financial statements are not belonging to the assessee as neither they are originals nor have been signed by any office bearers of the companies, and these were not disowned by the searched person, Minda Group. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the documents mentioned in the satisfaction notes do not belong to the assessee.

5. The Impact of the Absence of Satisfaction Recorded by the AO of the Searched Person:

The Tribunal considered the impact of the absence of satisfaction recorded by the AO of the searched person. The Tribunal noted that the AO of the searched person did not record any satisfaction before handing over the impugned documents to the AO of the other person. The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pepsico India Holdings P. Ltd. vs. ACIT, which held that it is necessary that the AO of the searched person must be satisfied that the seized material does not belong to the searched person. Therefore, the Tribunal held that in the absence of such satisfaction note by the AO of the searched person, the AO of the searched person failed to confer any lawful and valid jurisdiction on the AO of the present assessee to proceed with the initiation of proceedings and issuance of notice under Section 153C of the Act.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessees on legal grounds, holding that the initiation of proceedings and issuance of notice under Section 153C of the Act was void ab initio. The Tribunal quashed the assessment orders passed under Section 153C of the Act and held that the additions made by the AO were beyond the scope of assessment as no addition was made on the basis of seized documents recorded in the satisfaction note. The Tribunal also held that the documents mentioned in the satisfaction notes do not belong to the assessee and that the absence of satisfaction recorded by the AO of the searched person rendered the proceedings under Section 153C invalid.