Section 153C assessment orders quashed for lacking jurisdiction and failing to establish correlation with incriminating material

The ITAT Delhi quashed assessment orders under section 153C read with section 143(3) for assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. For AY 2011-12, the tribunal held the Assessing Officer lacked valid jurisdiction as this year fell outside the mandatory six-year block period for section 153C assessments. For AY 2012-13, the tribunal found the incriminating material in the satisfaction note failed to establish correlation with the specific assessment year under consideration. Following precedents from Delhi HC and coordinate benches, both assessment orders dated 30.12.2018 were declared invalid and quashed along with all consequent proceedings. The appeals were decided in favor of the assessee.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdictional validity of assessment orders under Section 153C/143(3).
2. Compliance with mandatory conditions for initiating proceedings under Section 153C.
3. Non-supply of alleged seized material to the assessee.
4. Validity of additions made without incriminating material.
5. Procedural lapses and violation of principles of natural justice.

Summary:

Issue 1: Jurisdictional Validity of Assessment Orders
The assessee contended that the assessment orders framed under Section 153C/143(3) were without assuming valid jurisdiction as per law, without recording requisite satisfaction, and without complying with mandatory conditions. The Tribunal noted that the search was conducted on 23.07.2015, and satisfaction was recorded on 23.03.2018. The Tribunal held that the year of search would be AY 2018-19, and the block of six preceding assessment years would be AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18. Therefore, the assessment for AY 2011-12 was outside the block of six years, making the assessment order invalid. The Tribunal quashed the assessment order for AY 2011-12 along with all consequent proceedings and orders.

Issue 2: Compliance with Mandatory Conditions
The Tribunal observed that the satisfaction note did not correlate the seized documents year-wise and did not lead to the additions made. The Tribunal emphasized that the jurisdictional conditions for initiating proceedings under Section 153C were not complied with, as the seized material did not pertain to the assessment years under consideration. Consequently, the assessment orders were held to be invalid.

Issue 3: Non-Supply of Alleged Seized Material
The assessee argued that the alleged seized material, based on which action under Section 153C was initiated, was not supplied despite specific requests. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer did not provide copies of the seized material and that it was the CIT(A) who supplied the material to the assessee. This procedural lapse contributed to the invalidity of the assessment orders.

Issue 4: Validity of Additions Made Without Incriminating Material
The Tribunal found that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not based on the seized material mentioned in the satisfaction note. The additions were on account of commission income and disallowance of bogus expenses, which were not supported by the seized material. The Tribunal held that the additions could not be made under Section 153C without incriminating material, rendering the assessment orders invalid.

Issue 5: Procedural Lapses and Violation of Principles of Natural Justice
The Tribunal noted several procedural lapses, including the issuance of a show-cause notice with insufficient time for compliance and reliance on statements without confronting the assessee. These lapses violated the principles of natural justice, further invalidating the assessment orders.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal quashed the assessment orders for AY 2011-12 to 2016-17, holding that the Assessing Officer did not have valid jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 153C and frame assessments. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of complying with mandatory conditions and procedural fairness in assessment proceedings. The appeals of the assessee were allowed, and all consequent proceedings and orders were quashed.

---