2022 (5) TMI 446 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal overturns orders citing jurisdictional errors in tax assessments. Importance of legal compliance stressed.

M/s Heaven Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT, Central Circle-13 New Delhi

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned orders due to jurisdictional issues regarding the validity of notices issued under sections ... Validity of Assessment u/s 153A - incriminating material in regard to the assessee found in the search or not? - HELD THAT:- Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Singhad Technical Education Society [2017 (8) TMI 1298 - SUPREME COURT] has held that incriminating material in regard to the assessee has to pertain to the assessment years in question. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawala [2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has held that if no incriminating material was found during the course of search in respect of the issue, no addition in respect of that issue can be made to the assessment u/s. 153A and 153C of the Act. Thus, the bench is of considered opinion that Ld. Tax Authorities below were not justified in making assessment, not based upon incriminating material mentioned in the satisfaction note and thus acted beyond jurisdiction and scope of Section 153C/143(3) of the Act. That being so, the assessment order deserves to be quashed and the remaining grounds as raised in appeal need not be examined further. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, Issues:1. Jurisdictional issue regarding the validity of notices issued under sections 153C/142(1)/143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Validity of addition of Rs. 1,44,00,000 made on a protective basis by the Assessing officer.3. Consideration of incriminating documents during search in relation to the transactions in the bank account.4. Comparison with the deletion of substantive addition made in the hands of companies of JP Minda group.Jurisdictional Issue:The appeal raised concerns about the validity of notices issued under sections 153C/142(1)/143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant argued that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was arbitrary and against the law. The appellant contended that the issuance of notices and the proceedings conducted were against the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that the satisfaction note recorded did not contain any incriminating material for the relevant financial year 2013-14. The Tribunal referred to legal precedents, including the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, to conclude that the assessment order was not based on incriminating material mentioned in the satisfaction note, thus acting beyond jurisdiction. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned orders.Validity of Addition:The Assessing officer made an addition of Rs. 1,44,00,000 on a protective basis. The appellant argued that this addition was made without proper consideration of the facts, statutory provisions, and explanations provided during the assessment and appellate proceedings. The Tribunal found that the addition was not based on incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal also noted that the substantive addition made in the hands of companies of JP Minda group had been deleted on the grounds of the genuineness of the investment made by the appellant. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the addition made on a protective basis was not justified and set aside the impugned orders.Consideration of Incriminating Documents:The appellant raised concerns about the lack of incriminating documents found during the search in relation to the transactions in the bank account. The Tribunal observed that the assessment proceedings were not based on the incriminating evidence referred to in the satisfaction note. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal held that if no incriminating material was found during the search in respect of the issue, no addition could be made to the assessment under sections 153A and 153C of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order as the Tax Authorities acted beyond their jurisdiction and the scope of the relevant sections.Comparison with Deletion of Substantive Addition:The appellant highlighted that the substantive addition made in the hands of companies of JP Minda group had been deleted based on the genuineness of the investment made by the appellant. The Tribunal considered this comparison and found that the addition made on a protective basis against the appellant was not justified, especially when no incriminating material was found during the search. This comparison further supported the Tribunal's decision to set aside the impugned orders.The Tribunal's judgment in the present case primarily focused on the jurisdictional issue regarding the validity of notices issued under sections 153C/142(1)/143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Through a detailed analysis of the legal arguments presented, consideration of relevant legal precedents, and examination of the facts on record, the Tribunal concluded that the assessment order was not based on incriminating material as required by law. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned orders and highlighting the importance of adhering to legal provisions and precedents in tax assessments.