Challenges to Assessment Dismissed, Unexplained Income Addition Set Aside, Appeals Partly Allowed

The Tribunal dismissed the challenges to the assessment's validity regarding the lack of notice under section 143(2) and satisfaction recorded by the AO. However, it set aside the addition of Rs. 45 lakh as unexplained income and remanded the matter for further examination and cross-examination of relevant parties. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of assessment under section 153C without issuing notice under section 143(2).
2. Validity of assessment order for want of satisfaction recorded by the AO.
3. Addition of Rs. 45 lakh as unexplained income allegedly received by the assessee for vacating the premises.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Assessment under Section 153C without Issuing Notice under Section 143(2):
The assessee argued that the assessment order dated 19th March 2016 was illegal as the statutory notice under section 143(2) was issued beyond the prescribed limitation. The AO recorded in the assessment order that a notice under section 143(2) was issued on 16.11.2015, and the assessee did not object during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal held that the issuance of notice under section 143(2) is not mandatory for assessments under sections 153A or 153C, referencing the decision in ACIT vs. Sunshine Infraestate Private Limited. Thus, the Tribunal dismissed the grounds challenging the validity of the assessment for want of notice under section 143(2).

2. Validity of Assessment Order for Want of Satisfaction Recorded by the AO:
The assessee contended that the AO did not record the necessary satisfaction before invoking section 153C. The AO stated in the assessment order that satisfaction was recorded in writing before issuing the notice under section 153C. The Tribunal found that the mere absence of this fact in the order-sheet entries does not negate the AO's recorded statement in the assessment order. The Tribunal dismissed the grounds challenging the validity of the assessment for want of satisfaction.

3. Addition of Rs. 45 Lakh as Unexplained Income Allegedly Received by the Assessee for Vacating the Premises:
The AO made an addition of Rs. 45 lakh based on a seized document (Annexure L-5/page 124) found during a search, which allegedly showed payments to the assessee and his brother. The assessee argued that he received only Rs. 60 lakh through cheques as per a memorandum of understanding (MOU) dated 30.05.2012 for vacating the premises. The Tribunal noted that the seized document was not signed or accepted by any party and was found from a third party's premises. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the AO to examine and cross-examine relevant parties, including Mr. Dinesh Kumar Pahuja and Mr. Hemant Kumar Sindhi, to verify the seized document's authenticity. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication after proper examination and cross-examination.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the grounds challenging the validity of the assessment for want of notice under section 143(2) and satisfaction recorded by the AO. However, it set aside the addition of Rs. 45 lakh and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication after examining and cross-examining relevant parties. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

---