2015 (11) TMI 1123 - AT - Income Tax

Assessment order quashed due to lack of proper satisfaction, Assessee's appeal allowed.

The Tribunal quashed the assessment order framed under Section 153C read with Section 153A, holding the notice under Section 153C invalid due to lack of ... Validity of notice issued u/s. 153C - Held that:- Assessing Officer of assessee did not record any satisfaction prior to issue of notice u/s 153C. The so-called satisfaction recorded in the notice u/s 153C is totally vague. It has not specified which valuable articles/things/books of accounts/documents were found from Shri Rameshbhai B, Shah which belongs to the assessee. In the assessment order the Assessing Officer has mentioned that in the laptop of Shri Rameshbhai B. Shah the data pertaining to the assessee were found and on that basis notices u/s 153C have been issued. However, in the notice u/s 153C, wherein the Assessing Officer is claimed to have been recorded the satisfaction for issue of the notice, there is no mention about such laptop or the alleged data in such laptop which is claimed to be belonged to the assessee. In view of above, we have no hesitation to hold that the basic condition for issue of notice u/s 153C has not been satisfied. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues Involved:1. Validity of the assessment order passed under Section 153C read with Section 153A and Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Assessment of undisclosed income amounting to Rs. 35,29,500.3. Levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C.4. Initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c).Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Assessment Order Passed under Section 153C read with Section 153A and Section 143(3):The primary contention raised by the Assessee was the invalidity of the notice issued under Section 153C. The Assessee argued that the basic condition for issuance of notice under Section 153C was not satisfied, as no proper satisfaction was recorded by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) of the persons searched. The satisfaction note was claimed to be vague and did not specify whether any money, bullion, jewellery, or other valuable articles or books of accounts belonging to the Assessee were seized from Shri Rameshbhai Shah.The Tribunal found that the satisfaction note recorded in the case of other assessees was considered by the ITAT, and it was held that no proper satisfaction was recorded by the A.O. of the person searched. The Tribunal noted that the satisfaction note was vague and did not specify the material found during the search that belonged to the Assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the notice issued under Section 153C and the assessment orders framed under Section 153C read with Section 153A, following the precedent set in the cases of Parshwa Corporation and Ratnaraj Sarees Pvt. Ltd.2. Assessment of Undisclosed Income Amounting to Rs. 35,29,500:The Assessee contended that the additional income offered for the project at Nadiad was reasonable and deserved to be accepted. The Assessee argued that the A.O. had erroneously applied a 25% net profit rate on the undisclosed turnover, which was not comparable to the Assessee's business. The CIT(A) had upheld the A.O.'s action, estimating a larger amount of undisclosed income than what was disclosed by the Assessee.However, since the Tribunal quashed the assessment order on the grounds of invalidity of the notice under Section 153C, the issue of the assessment of undisclosed income did not require further adjudication.3. Levy of Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C:The Assessee challenged the levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C, arguing that it was not mandatory and deserved to be canceled in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The CIT(A) had dismissed the Assessee's appeal on the ground that the levy of interest was mandatory and consequential in nature.As the Tribunal quashed the assessment order itself, the issue of levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C did not require further adjudication.4. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c):The Assessee challenged the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c), arguing that there was no justification for initiating such proceedings. The CIT(A) had dismissed the Assessee's appeal, stating that the mere initiation of penalty proceedings was not appealable.Since the Tribunal quashed the assessment order, the issue of initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) did not require further adjudication.Conclusion:The Tribunal quashed the assessment order framed under Section 153C read with Section 153A, holding that the notice issued under Section 153C was invalid due to the lack of proper satisfaction recorded by the A.O. of the person searched. Consequently, the issues related to the assessment of undisclosed income, levy of interest, and initiation of penalty proceedings did not require further adjudication. The appeal of the Assessee was allowed.