Assessment orders under Section 153C quashed for falling outside ten-year block period and lacking incriminating material evidence

ITAT Chennai quashed assessment orders u/s 153C for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14 as they fell outside the permissible ten-year block period. The tribunal held that AY 2012-13 was beyond the statutory limit when computed from AY 2022-23. Additionally, the AO lacked jurisdiction under the fourth proviso of Section 153A as no incriminating material relating to unexplained assets was found during search. For unabated assessments, additions u/s 69 were deleted since no incriminating evidence was discovered from the searched premises, following SC precedent in U.K. Paints case. Appeals allowed.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core issues considered in this judgment revolve around the legality of the assessment orders issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Years (AY) 2012-13 and 2013-14. The specific questions are:

• Whether the assessment orders for AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14 are valid under Section 153C, considering the absence of incriminating material found during the search.
• Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) was correct in reopening assessments for AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14, which are beyond the standard six-year period, under the extended ten-year block as per the fourth proviso to Section 153A.
• Whether the AO satisfied the necessary conditions precedent for reopening assessments under the fourth proviso to Section 153A, specifically the requirement of having in possession evidence of income represented in the form of an asset that escaped assessment.
• Whether the additions made in the unabated assessments for AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14 were based on any incriminating material found during the search.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Validity of Assessment Orders under Section 153C

The legal framework under Section 153C allows the AO to issue notices to assess income for any other person (not searched) if documents or assets belonging to such person are found during a search. The Court examined whether the seized material was incriminating and justified the reopening of assessments for AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14.

The Court found that the documents seized were regular books of accounts and not incriminating. The AO's reliance on regular books to justify additions was deemed inappropriate, as these documents did not reveal any undisclosed income or asset.

2. Application of the Ten-Year Block Period

The AO attempted to apply the extended ten-year block period, introduced by the Finance Act, 2017, to reopen assessments for AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14. The Court analyzed the relevant legal provisions, including the first proviso to Section 153C and Explanation 1 to Section 153A, which define the computation of the ten-year block period.

The Court concluded that the ten-year block should be computed from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search was conducted. In this case, the deemed date of search was determined to be the date of the satisfaction note, i.e., 31-12-2021. Consequently, AY 2012-13 fell outside the ten-year block, rendering the notice for this year void.

3. Satisfaction of Conditions under the Fourth Proviso to Section 153A

The fourth proviso to Section 153A requires the AO to possess evidence that income represented in the form of an asset, valued at Rs. 50 lakhs or more, has escaped assessment. The Court scrutinized whether the AO had such evidence before issuing notices for AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14.

The Court found that the AO's satisfaction note did not specify any undisclosed asset that escaped assessment for the relevant years. The seized material did not reveal any unaccounted assets, and the AO's reliance on regular books was insufficient to satisfy the jurisdictional fact required by the fourth proviso.

4. Additions in Unabated Assessments Based on Incriminating Material

The Court considered whether the additions made under Section 69 for unexplained investments in the unabated assessments for AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14 were based on incriminating material found during the search.

The Court reiterated the settled legal position that additions in unabated assessments must be based on incriminating material found during the search. In this case, the seized documents were regular books of accounts, and no incriminating material was found to justify the additions. The Court directed the AO to delete the additions made under Section 69.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• The Court held that the assessment orders for AY 2012-13 were void as they fell outside the ten-year block period, and the AO lacked jurisdiction to reopen them under Section 153C.
• The Court concluded that the AO did not satisfy the conditions precedent under the fourth proviso to Section 153A for reopening assessments for AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14, as there was no evidence of undisclosed assets valued at Rs. 50 lakhs or more.
• The Court emphasized that additions in unabated assessments must be based on incriminating material found during the search. In the absence of such material, the additions under Section 69 were unsustainable.
• The Court directed the deletion of additions made under Section 69 for AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14, as they were not based on incriminating material.

---