2025 (3) TMI 36 - AT - Income Tax

Assessment under Section 153A invalid without incriminating material found during search operations, following Supreme Court precedent

ITAT Delhi held that assessment under section 153A was invalid where no incriminating material was found during search operations under section 132. ... Validity of assessment u/s 153A - as argued incriminating material was found during the search operation - HELD THAT:- In the case of Abhisar Buildwell [2023 (4) TMI 1056 - SUPREME COURT] held that in case no incriminating material is found during the search conducted u/s 132 of the Act, the Ld. AO will have no jurisdiction to make an assessment As there is no any such incriminating material was found during the search operation which may persuade or authorized to the Ld. AO to proceed with the assessment u/s 153A and by following judicial precedents mentioned hereinbefore, assessment proceedings invalid and not authorized by law and hereby quashed and set aside. Decided in favour of assessee. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment include: Whether the assessment orders were framed without jurisdiction, based on materials from a search action under Section 132 on a third party, violating Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Whether the assessments under Section 153A were invalid due to the absence of incriminating material unearthed from the assessee's own search action. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated due to non-confrontation of relied-upon materials and lack of cross-examination opportunities. Whether the additions sustained by the CIT(A) were based on invalid reasoning without considering the assessee's submissions and evidence. Whether the approval under Section 153D was invalid. Whether the assessment orders were passed without proper application of mind to the available material.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISJurisdictional Validity of the Assessment OrdersThe legal framework under Section 153C requires that assessments based on materials from a search on a third party must follow specific procedures. The court examined whether the assessment orders were framed without jurisdiction by relying on materials from a search on another person, violating Section 153C.The court found that the assessments were based on statements and materials from searches conducted on third parties, without following the procedure under Section 153C. The court emphasized that the assessment should have been conducted under Section 153C if the materials belonged to or pertained to the assessee.Absence of Incriminating MaterialThe court considered whether the assessments under Section 153A were valid in the absence of incriminating material from the assessee's own search. The legal precedents require that for unabated assessments, additions can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search.The court found that no incriminating material was discovered during the assessee's own search. The reliance on statements from third-party searches was deemed insufficient to justify the assessments under Section 153A.Violation of Principles of Natural JusticeThe court examined whether the principles of natural justice were violated due to the non-confrontation of materials and lack of cross-examination. The legal framework mandates that the assessee should be given an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses whose statements are relied upon.The court found that the assessee was not provided with an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, and the materials were not adequately confronted. This constituted a violation of natural justice, rendering the assessments invalid.Invalid Reasoning for AdditionsThe court analyzed whether the additions sustained by the CIT(A) were based on valid reasoning. The court scrutinized whether the CIT(A) considered the assessee's submissions and evidence.The court concluded that the CIT(A) did not adequately consider the submissions and evidence provided by the assessee. The reasoning for the additions was found to be invalid and unsupported by the evidence.Invalid Approval under Section 153DThe court evaluated the validity of the approval under Section 153D, which is required for assessments based on search actions. The legal framework mandates proper approval for such assessments.The court found that the approval under Section 153D was not validly obtained, contributing to the invalidity of the assessment orders.Lack of Application of MindThe court assessed whether the assessment orders were passed without proper application of mind to the material on record. The legal requirement is that assessments should be based on a thorough examination of the available evidence.The court determined that the assessment orders lacked proper application of mind, as the assessing officer did not adequately consider the evidence and materials available.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe court held that the assessment orders were invalid due to multiple legal deficiencies, including jurisdictional issues, absence of incriminating material, violations of natural justice, invalid reasoning for additions, and lack of proper approval and application of mind.Significant legal reasoning included: 'In the absence of any incriminating material in an unabated assessment, additions/disallowances made by AO require to be quashed.' 'Mere requested to time for cross-examination is not synonym to declining it.' 'Such statements alone, without any other material discovered during the search which would corroborate said statements, do not grant the AO the authority to make an assessment.'The core principles established include the necessity of incriminating material for assessments under Section 153A, adherence to natural justice principles, and the requirement for valid jurisdiction and approval under Sections 153C and 153D.The final determination was that both appeals of the assessee were allowed, and the assessment proceedings were set aside and quashed.