Tribunal Rules AO Lacked Authority; Invalidates Deductions Reduction, Allows Assessee Appeals, Dismisses Revenue Appeals.

Meghmani Organics Limited. Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax.

Meghmani Organics Limited. Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax. - [2010] 6 ITR 360, 129 TTJ 255, [2010] 36 DTR (A. T.) 187 Issues Involved:
1. Validity of proceedings initiated under Section 153A read with Section 153C of the Income Tax Act.
2. Reduction of deductions claimed under Sections 80HHC and 80-IA of the Income Tax Act.
3. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) in reassessing completed assessments based on seized documents.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Proceedings Initiated under Section 153A read with Section 153C of the Income Tax Act:

A search was conducted under Section 132(1) of the Act, and documents were seized from the residential premises of two individuals. The AO initiated proceedings under Section 153A read with Section 153C, asserting that the documents belonged to the assessee. However, the AO admitted that the seized documents did not reveal any specific undisclosed income. The assessee contested this, arguing that the documents were maintained by the individuals in their professional capacity and did not belong to the assessee. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, stating that the documents, although related to the assessee's work, did not belong to the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that for initiating action under Section 153C, the documents must belong to the assessee and reveal undisclosed income, which was not the case here. Thus, the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C was deemed invalid.

2. Reduction of Deductions Claimed under Sections 80HHC and 80-IA of the Income Tax Act:

The AO reduced the deductions claimed under Sections 80HHC and 80-IA during the assessment. The reductions were based on:
- Inclusion of excise duty and sales tax in total turnover.
- Ignoring loss from export trade while computing deduction under Section 80HHC.
- Eligibility of deduction under Section 80HHC on a unit-wise basis.
- Deduction under Section 80HHC in accordance with Section 80-IA(9).
- Exclusion of duty drawback and premium on sale of licenses from eligible profits under Section 80-IA.

The Tribunal noted that these issues were already litigated in the original assessments and had attained finality through appellate orders. Since the original assessments were not pending at the time of the search, they could not be reopened under Section 153C proceedings. Therefore, the AO's action in reducing the deductions was invalid.

3. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in Reassessing Completed Assessments Based on Seized Documents:

The Tribunal highlighted that the AO could not reassess completed assessments unless the documents seized belonged to the assessee and revealed undisclosed income. The Tribunal referred to various judicial precedents and CBDT Circular No. 7 of 2003, which clarified that only pending assessments abate, and completed assessments cannot be reopened unless they abate. In this case, the original assessments were completed, and only appeals were pending, which do not abate. Therefore, the AO had no jurisdiction to reassess the completed assessments under Section 153C.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal set aside the assessments made under Section 153C, holding that the AO was not competent to initiate action under Section 153C as the seized documents did not belong to the assessee and did not reveal any undisclosed income. Consequently, the appeals of the assessee were allowed, and those of the Revenue were dismissed.