2014 (1) TMI 1242 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds CIT(A)'s decision, dismisses Revenue's appeals on Section 153C.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessments. The Tribunal found that the necessary conditions ... Validity of notice u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A - Held that:- the AO must be satisfied that documents, money bullion etc belonged to other person and on being recording satisfaction the case record/seized material is required to be forwarded to the AO of such other person - This is not the question of an incompetency in the jurisdiction but if a satisfaction is not recorded then this is an irregular exercise of assumption of jurisdiction - The learned CIT(A) had given ample opportunity to the Revenue Department to place the required “satisfaction” if available on record - The Revenue Department had failed to place on record any such “satisfaction note” - The learned CIT(A) was justified in quashing the asessment order. Undisclosed income - Held that:- No evidence was detected at the time of search through which it could have been demonstrated that the assessee had earned the impugned unaccounted income so assessed - The AO had taxed merely on presumption that the assessee might have earned some professional income being an architect pertaining to the project supervised by him - The provisions of Section 68 were not related to the seized material but based upon the books of account of the assessee, hence, out of the purview of the search assessment - Decided against Revenue. Issues Involved:1. Validity of notice issued under Section 153C read with Section 153A of the Income Tax Act.2. Jurisdictional challenge and the timing of raising such an objection.3. Requirement of a satisfaction note for initiating proceedings under Section 153C.4. Connection of quantum additions with the search material.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Notice Issued Under Section 153C read with Section 153A of the Income Tax Act:The Revenue challenged the decision of the CIT(A) which held that the notice issued under Section 153C read with Section 153A was not valid. The CIT(A) found that the seized material did not pertain to the assessee and thus invalidated the notice. The Tribunal upheld this view, emphasizing that for Section 153C to be invoked, the seized documents must belong to the assessee. The absence of such documents invalidated the notice.2. Jurisdictional Challenge and Timing of Raising Such an Objection:The Revenue argued that the assessee should have objected to the jurisdiction of the AO within one month of receiving the notice, as per Section 124(2) and (3) of the IT Act. The Tribunal noted that the issue of jurisdiction was raised as an additional ground in the first round of appeal and was admitted by the Tribunal. The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate this additional ground, and thus the timing of the objection was not a bar in this case.3. Requirement of a Satisfaction Note for Initiating Proceedings Under Section 153C:The CIT(A) called for a satisfaction note from the AO to justify the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C. The AO failed to produce such a note. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the absence of a satisfaction note meant the condition precedent for invoking Section 153C was not fulfilled. The Tribunal cited the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in Shri Vijaybhai N. Chandrani, which held that a satisfaction note is a sine qua non for such proceedings.4. Connection of Quantum Additions with the Search Material:The Tribunal observed that the quantum additions made by the AO were not connected to the search material. The AO's additions were based on presumptions about the assessee's professional income and not on any evidence unearthed during the search. The Tribunal noted that the additions under Section 68 were also based on the assessee's books of account and not on seized material, making them irrelevant to the search assessment.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessments. The Tribunal found that the necessary conditions for invoking Section 153C were not met, and the quantum additions were not connected to the search material. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of a satisfaction note and the proper connection of additions to the search material in search assessments.