2024 (12) TMI 240 - AT - Income Tax

AO lacked jurisdiction under Section 153C to issue notice without incriminating material, assessment orders declared null and void

Sadayandi Pothiraj, K.V.P. Sadayandi, Sadayandi Magesh, Sadayandi Murugesh, Sadayandi Ashok, Sadayandi Ramesh Versus The DCIT, Central Circle-1 (3), Chennai.

Sadayandi Pothiraj, K.V.P. Sadayandi, Sadayandi Magesh, Sadayandi Murugesh, Sadayandi Ashok, Sadayandi Ramesh Versus The DCIT, Central Circle-1 (3), ... Issues Involved:1. Validity of jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act.2. Whether additions made under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) were based on incriminating material found during search.3. Legal sustainability of the assessment orders for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2016-17.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Jurisdiction under Section 153C:The primary issue was whether the Assessing Officer (AO) had the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 153C against the appellants. The AO's jurisdiction under Section 153C requires a valid satisfaction note indicating that the seized material pertains to a person other than the searched entity. In this case, the AO's satisfaction was based on cash ledgers found during a search at M/s Pothys Pvt. Ltd., which allegedly indicated unaccounted investments by the appellants in immovable properties. However, the appellants argued that these notings pertained to properties acquired by the partnership firm, M/s Pothys, and not to them individually. The Tribunal found that the AO's satisfaction was based on an incorrect assumption of facts, as the properties were acquired by the firm and held in partners' names due to the firm's non-juridical status. Furthermore, the unaccounted investments had already been disclosed and taxed in the hands of M/s Pothys/M/s Pothys Pvt. Ltd. before the Settlement Commission. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the AO's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was invalid, as the seized material did not pertain to the appellants.2. Additions under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) and Incriminating Material:The Tribunal examined whether the additions made under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) were based on incriminating material found during the search. The AO had made additions based on the difference between the fair market value determined by the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) and the actual purchase consideration of the properties. However, the Tribunal noted that the valuation report was obtained during the assessment and not from the search itself. Moreover, the seized material did not contain any incriminating evidence against the appellants. The Tribunal emphasized that for unabated assessments, any addition must be based on incriminating material found during the search, as established by the Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. Since no such material was found, the additions under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) were not sustainable.3. Legal Sustainability of Assessment Orders:Given the invalid jurisdiction under Section 153C and the absence of incriminating material, the Tribunal held that the assessment orders for the years 2014-15 and 2016-17 were legally unsustainable. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the additions made under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) for these assessment years. The Tribunal's decision applied to all appellants, as the facts and circumstances were identical across the cases.Conclusion:The appeals were allowed, and the Tribunal ordered the deletion of the impugned additions for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2016-17, as the jurisdiction under Section 153C was not validly assumed, and the additions were not based on incriminating material found during the search.