2020 (7) TMI 46 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Upholds Decision; No Jurisdiction Found Under Sec 153A/153C for Lack of Evidence, Dismissing Appeal for 2009-2010.

The Tribunal dismissed the Departmental Appeal, affirming the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision favoring the assessee. The Tribunal concurred that the A.O. lacked ... Assessment u/s 153A - Assumption of jurisdiction - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) considered the first issue of assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C of the I.T Act in detail considering the material on record and in the light of Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. RRJ Securities Ltd., [2015 (11) TMI 19 - DELHI HIGH COURT] The Ld. CIT(A) examining the issue in the light of provisions of Section 153Cof the I.T. Act found that six assessment years prior to the date of search in this case which is September, 2016 being the date on which documents etc., were handed-over to the A.O. of the assessee should be A.Ys. 2011-2012 to 2016-2017. Thus, there was no jurisdiction with the A.O. to proceed under section 153C for the A.Y. 2009-2010 under appeal. D.R. did not dispute that issue is covered in favour of the assessee by Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. RRJ Securities Ltd., (supra) in which it was held that “the date of satisfaction would be when the A.O. assumes position as that of the A.O. of the other person Departmental Appeal has no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. We may also note here that on other two issues, the Ld. CIT(A) has also granted relief to the assessee holding that no incriminating material was found during the course of search so as to make assessment against the assessee. The Revenue has not challenged these findings of the Ld. CIT(A) on these two issues. Therefore, even if the Departmental Appeal may be considered favourably in favour of the Revenue, it would not yield any result as the ultimate result would be that Ld. CIT(A) has correctly allowed the appeal of assessee. - Decided against revenue. Issues:1. Jurisdiction under section 153A/153C of the I.T. Act for A.Y. 2009-2010.2. Validity of assessment order under section 153A/153C based on incriminating evidence.3. Use of documents from other assessment years for reopening assessments.Jurisdiction under section 153A/153C of the I.T. Act for A.Y. 2009-2010:The appeal by Revenue challenged the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) regarding the assessment order for A.Y. 2009-2010. The Ld. CIT(A) found that the A.O. had issued the notice under section 153A r.w.s 153C to the assessee company on 28.09.2016. However, the seized material was received by the A.O. of the assessee on 02.09.2016. The Ld. CIT(A) referred to the provisions of Section 153C and held that the A.O. had no jurisdiction to pass the assessment order for A.Y. 2009-2010. Citing judgments of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the Ld. CIT(A) ruled that the assessment order for the said year was without jurisdiction, void abinitio, and quashed it.Validity of assessment order under section 153A/153C based on incriminating evidence:The Ld. CIT(A) examined whether the assessment order passed under section 153A/153C was valid, considering the presence of incriminating material during the search. It was found that no incriminating material was discovered against the assessee during the search. Citing a judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the Ld. CIT(A) held that since no incriminating material was found, the assessment order was invalid and bad in law.Use of documents from other assessment years for reopening assessments:Regarding the use of documents from other assessment years for reopening assessments, the Ld. CIT(A) referred to a decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and concluded that the action of the A.O. was bad in law, rendering the order void abinitio. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.In the final analysis, the Tribunal heard both parties and observed that the Departmental Appeal lacked merit. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) correctly decided in favor of the assessee on all issues. Even if the Departmental Appeal were to be considered favorably, the ultimate result would remain in favor of the assessee. Therefore, the Departmental Appeal was dismissed, and the appeal of the Department was also dismissed.