2016 (11) TMI 530 - AT - Income Tax

Assessee's Appeals Allowed, Assessment Orders Quashed for Failure to Comply with Section 153C

Shri Gali Janardhana Reddy Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1 (3), Bangalore

The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee, quashing the assessment orders framed under Section 153C read with Section 143(3) for the assessment ... Validity of assessment u/s 153C - absence of satisfaction - Held that:- No satisfaction was recorded by the AO in his capacity as AO of the searched person because it is seen that the so-called satisfaction note prepared by the AO is in his capacity as AO of assessee, although he happens to be the AO of the searched persons also, it could not be shown by the revenue that any satisfaction note was prepared by him as AO of searched persons and therefore, under these facts, this is to be accepted that no satisfaction was recorded by the AO of searched person and therefore we hold that in the present case, notice issued by the AO u/s. 153C of the I.T. Act deserves to be quashed and accordingly, we quash these assessment orders framed by the AO u/s. 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act. - Decided in favour of assessee Issues Involved:1. Validity of the satisfaction note under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act.2. Applicability of the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears.3. Compliance with statutory requirements for initiating proceedings under Section 153C.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the satisfaction note under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act:The primary issue raised by the assessee was the validity of the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 153C. The assessee argued that the AO of the searched person must record satisfaction before initiating proceedings against another person under Section 153C. The revenue countered that the same AO handled both the searched persons and the assessee, and satisfaction was recorded before issuing the notice under Section 153C. The tribunal noted that the satisfaction note was recorded by the same AO, but it was done in his capacity as the AO of the assessee, not as the AO of the searched persons. The Tribunal emphasized that even if the AO is the same for both parties, the satisfaction must be recorded in the capacity of the AO of the searched person.2. Applicability of the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears:The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears, which mandates that satisfaction must be recorded by the AO of the searched person before transmitting the records to the AO of the other person. The Tribunal also referred to the Allahabad High Court's judgment in CIT vs. M/s. Gopi Apartment, which reiterated the necessity of recording satisfaction by the AO of the searched person before initiating proceedings under Section 153C. The Tribunal found that the satisfaction note in the present case did not meet this requirement, as it was recorded by the AO in his capacity as the AO of the assessee.3. Compliance with statutory requirements for initiating proceedings under Section 153C:The Tribunal concluded that the statutory requirements for initiating proceedings under Section 153C were not met, as the satisfaction was not recorded by the AO in his capacity as the AO of the searched person. The Tribunal noted that the satisfaction note must be recorded before issuing the notice under Section 153C, and this procedural requirement is mandatory. The Tribunal quashed the assessment orders framed under Section 153C read with Section 143(3) due to the lack of proper satisfaction recording.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee, quashing the assessment orders framed under Section 153C read with Section 143(3) for the assessment years 2005-06 to 2011-12. The Tribunal's decision was based on the failure to record satisfaction by the AO in his capacity as the AO of the searched person, as required by the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears and the Allahabad High Court's judgment in CIT vs. M/s. Gopi Apartment. The Tribunal emphasized the mandatory nature of this procedural requirement for initiating proceedings under Section 153C.