TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Assessment under Section 153C quashed for limitation period violation and procedural irregularities in bogus purchase additions</h1> <h3>Shri Kamal Sharma Versus DCIT, Central circle-II, Faridabad.</h3> Shri Kamal Sharma Versus DCIT, Central circle-II, Faridabad. - TMI ISSUES: Whether the initiation of assessment proceedings under section 153C of the Income Tax Act is barred by limitation if issued beyond six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which satisfaction is recorded. Whether assessment framed under section 143(3) instead of section 153C for assessment years falling within the six-year block is valid. Whether additions made on the basis of documents seized during search that do not pertain to the relevant assessment year can be sustained. Whether additions can be made in the absence of incriminating material found during search proceedings under sections 153A/153C. Whether rejection of books of accounts under section 145(3) without recording satisfaction of incompleteness or incorrectness is valid. Whether addition made by applying gross profit rate on turnover already declared and taxed results in impermissible double taxation. Whether adverse inferences can be drawn from statements recorded without affording the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination. Whether assessment orders passed on the basis of surmises and conjectures without material evidence are sustainable. Whether passing assessment orders without providing adequate opportunity of hearing violates principles of natural justice. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: Initiation of proceedings under section 153C beyond the period of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which satisfaction is recorded is 'illegal and liable to be quashed' as the AO has 'no jurisdiction' to assess such years. Assessment framed under section 143(3) instead of section 153C for assessment years falling within the six-year block is 'patently illegal' and 'not sustainable in the eyes of law' due to jurisdictional error, and such assessments are liable to be quashed. Additions based on seized documents that do not pertain to the relevant assessment year are not sustainable as such documents cannot be considered incriminating for that year. In the absence of any incriminating material found during search proceedings, no addition can be made under sections 153A/153C, as the jurisdiction to reopen depends on possession of incriminating material relating to the assessee. Books of accounts cannot be rejected under section 145(3) without the AO recording satisfaction that they are incorrect or incomplete; rejection without such satisfaction is invalid. Addition of gross profit on sales turnover already declared and taxed amounts to 'double taxation' which is 'unsustainable and unjust in the eyes of law.' Statements recorded without affording the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the declarants are 'illegal,' violate 'principles of natural justice,' and the additions based on such statements are 'unsustainable.' Assessment orders based solely on 'surmises and conjectures' without material evidence are not sustainable and liable to be deleted. Passing assessment orders without providing adequate opportunity of hearing constitutes violation of the 'principle of natural justice.' RATIONALE: The legal framework relies primarily on the provisions of sections 153A, 153C, 143(3), and 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, with emphasis on the limitation period and jurisdictional requirements for reopening assessments post-search. Section 153C mandates that assessments for non-searched persons must be framed within six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which satisfaction is recorded; the date of recording satisfaction is the deemed date of search for the non-searched person. Precedents from coordinate Benches, High Courts, and the Supreme Court establish that initiation of proceedings beyond the six-year block is void ab initio and that framing assessments under incorrect provisions (e.g., 143(3) instead of 153C) constitutes jurisdictional error not curable under section 292BB. The principle that additions must be based on 'incriminating material' found during search is affirmed, referencing Supreme Court rulings and High Court judgments emphasizing that mere possession of 'dumb documents' or uncorroborated loose sheets is insufficient. Rejection of books of accounts under section 145(3) requires recorded satisfaction of defectiveness; failure to do so invalidates such rejection. Double taxation is impermissible; taxing gross profit already declared and subjected to tax violates fundamental tax principles. Principles of natural justice require that statements used against an assessee must be subject to cross-examination; failure to provide such opportunity renders reliance on such statements illegal, as upheld by Supreme Court and High Court decisions. Assessments based on surmises and conjectures without material evidence contravene settled legal principles and are liable to be set aside. The Tribunal distinguished between procedural fairness and jurisdictional errors, holding that jurisdictional errors (such as framing assessment under wrong section) cannot be cured by subsequent approvals or provisions.
TaxTMI 