Additions under section 68 deleted as survey findings cannot support section 153C proceedings without incriminating material

ITAT Guwahati allowed the appeal, deleting additions made under section 68 for loans and interest expenses in assessment under section 153C. The Tribunal held that survey findings cannot be utilized in section 153C proceedings without incriminating material found during search. Following precedent from SC in Abhisar Buildwell case, additions for difference in sales, unexplained cash credits, and interest on bogus loans were deleted. Issues regarding GMC tax treatment and disallowance under section 40A(3) were remanded to AO for verification and proper documentation.

---

---

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in these appeals pertain primarily to the validity and jurisdiction of assessments framed under section 153C read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following a search and seizure operation or survey. The key issues include:

1. Whether the assessment orders passed under section 153C/143(3) are valid in law, particularly whether proper satisfaction was recorded as mandated by the Income Tax Act before assuming jurisdiction.

2. Whether additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A))-notably additions under section 68 relating to alleged bogus/unsecured loans and disallowance of interest on such loans-are justified in the absence of incriminating material found during the search or survey.

3. Whether the disallowance of interest expenses on unsecured loans is legally sustainable.

4. Whether additions on account of suppression of sales, based on documents seized during survey proceedings, are legally tenable in assessments framed under section 153C.

5. Whether disallowances under section 40A(3) and other related provisions concerning capital and revenue expenditures, sundry subscriptions, and penalties are justified.

6. The applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-3 vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd., regarding the requirement of incriminating material for invoking jurisdiction under sections 153A/153C and the consequent scope of assessments.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

1. Validity of Assessment Orders under Section 153C/143(3) and Recording of Satisfaction

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 153C of the Income Tax Act allows the AO to assess income of a person if documents or assets seized from a searched person pertain to that person. However, such jurisdiction can be exercised only after recording proper satisfaction that the seized material relates to the assessee. The Supreme Court in Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. clarified that for completed or unabated assessments, no additions can be made under section 153A/153C unless incriminating material is found during search or requisition under sections 132/132A.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that no warrant of authorization under section 132(1) was issued in the name of the assessee; only a survey under section 133A was conducted. The authorization for survey is not equivalent to search authorization and does not trigger jurisdiction under sections 153A/153C. The satisfaction note relied upon by the AO partly pertained to survey proceedings and contained no incriminating material found in a search in the assessee's premises. The Tribunal held that the AO's assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C was not valid as no proper satisfaction was recorded and no incriminating material was found in the course of search.

Key Evidence and Findings: The satisfaction note included two parts: one relating to search in the Bhagya Kalita group and another prepared by the AO of the assessee. The Tribunal found that the documents seized during the survey (non-search) could not be used to invoke section 153C jurisdiction. The property purchase transactions cited by the AO predated the insertion of section 56(2)(x) and were disclosed in earlier assessments.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the Supreme Court's ruling to hold that since no incriminating material was found during search, the AO could not validly make assessments under section 153C for completed years. The assessments for AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16 were declared void ab initio as the notice under section 153C was issued beyond the permissible block period relative to the date of search.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department argued that the survey and search were contemporaneous and that the assessee was part of the Bhagya Kalita group, thus attracting section 153C jurisdiction. The Tribunal rejected this, holding that survey authorization is not equivalent to search authorization and that the property purchase was prior to the group's acquisition, making the contention factually incorrect.

Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the assessments framed under section 153C/143(3) without proper satisfaction and incriminating material were bad in law and liable to be quashed.

2. Additions under Section 68 for Unsecured Loans and Disallowance of Interest

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 68 deals with unexplained cash credits, including loans. The AO can add such amounts to income if the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the source. The Supreme Court in Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. reiterated that additions under section 153A/153C require incriminating material found during search.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AO made additions on account of unsecured loans from certain entities, disallowing interest paid on these loans. However, the Tribunal noted that these loans were accepted and disclosed in earlier scrutiny assessments (e.g., AY 2014-15), and the interest was paid with tax deducted at source. No incriminating material was found during the search to justify additions under section 153C.

Key Evidence and Findings: The loans were accepted in FY 2013-14 and FY 2015-16, and assessments for these years were scrutinized without adverse findings. The survey of lender companies revealed some procedural lapses unrelated to the assessee's income. The AO's additions were based on survey findings, not search findings.

Application of Law to Facts: Applying the principle from Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd., the Tribunal held that additions and disallowances based on survey evidence without incriminating material from search were not sustainable under section 153C.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department contended that survey findings could be used to justify additions. The Tribunal rejected this, emphasizing the legal distinction between survey and search and the necessity of incriminating material for section 153C assessments.

Conclusion: Additions under section 68 and disallowance of interest on unsecured loans were deleted for all relevant assessment years.

3. Additions on Account of Suppression of Sales Based on Documents Seized During Survey

Legal Framework and Precedents: Income Tax assessments under section 153C require incriminating material found during search. Documents seized during survey under section 133A do not trigger section 153C jurisdiction. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. and the decision in CIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The additions on undisclosed sales were based on impounded registers and tally backups found during survey proceedings. The Tribunal held that such documents cannot be used for assessments under section 153C, as no search was conducted at the assessee's premises and no incriminating material was found during search.

Key Evidence and Findings: The impounded documents were parallel books of account maintained by the assessee. The assessee had voluntarily disclosed income at 8% of the difference in turnover to avoid litigation. The AO assessed gross sales as undisclosed, which the assessee challenged on principle that only net profit is taxable.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal held that since the documents were seized during survey, not search, the AO lacked jurisdiction under section 153C to make additions based on those documents. The additions were therefore deleted.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department argued that the documents were incriminating and justified additions. The Tribunal rejected this, holding that survey findings cannot be used for section 153C assessments.

Conclusion: Additions on account of suppression of sales based on survey documents were deleted.

4. Disallowances under Section 40A(3), Capital Expenditure, and Sundry Subscription

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 40A(3) disallows expenditure in cash exceeding Rs. 20,000 unless exceptions apply. Section 37(1) disallows expenditure incurred for an offence or prohibited by law. Depreciation is allowable only on capitalized assets.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AO disallowed GMC tax paid as penalty, treating it as non-capital expenditure, and disallowed related depreciation. The AO also disallowed sundry subscription expenses and cash payments violating section 40A(3). The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of GMC tax and cash payments but allowed the sundry subscription on business purpose grounds.

Key Evidence and Findings: The GMC tax was paid as penalty for violation of municipal regulations and not for regularization or construction, thus not forming part of asset cost. Cash payments above Rs. 20,000 were unsupported and disallowance was statutory. Sundry subscriptions related to business promotion and festive occasions.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal remanded the issues relating to GMC tax and depreciation to AO for verification whether the penalty was for an offence or otherwise and whether capitalization was justified. The disallowance under section 40A(3) was upheld as statutory. Sundry subscription disallowance was deleted.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee argued for capitalization of GMC tax and allowance of cash payments. The Tribunal required further verification on capitalization claim but upheld statutory disallowance of cash payments.

Conclusion: Disallowance of GMC tax and depreciation remanded for verification; disallowance under section 40A(3) confirmed; sundry subscription allowed.

5. Applicability of Supreme Court Decision in Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. and Consequences

Legal Framework and Precedents: The Supreme Court in Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. clarified that for assessments under sections 153A/153C, incriminating material found during search is a prerequisite to make additions in completed/unabated assessments. In absence of such material, the AO's jurisdiction is limited and reassessment can only be initiated under sections 147/148 subject to conditions.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal extensively relied on this precedent to hold that the AO could not validly make additions under section 153C based on survey findings or other material when no incriminating material was found during search. The Tribunal also noted that the Revenue retains the remedy to initiate reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 if conditions are met.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal observed that no incriminating material was found in the course of search in the Bhagya Kalita group or the assessee's premises. The survey authorization and findings cannot substitute for search findings. The Tribunal referred to earlier orders deleting additions in the Bhagya Kalita case on similar grounds.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the Supreme Court's ruling to quash the assessments framed under section 153C and directed the AO to consider action under section 147/148 if justified, following CBDT Instruction No. 1/2023 and section 150 of the Act.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department sought directions for reassessment under section 147/148, which the Tribunal allowed subject to legal conditions. The assessee objected to the Tribunal's directions on section 150, but the Tribunal clarified its quasi-judicial role and the applicability of the Supreme Court's directions.

Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue and allowed the assessee's appeals, deleting additions made under section 153C for lack of incriminating material, while preserving the Revenue's right to reassess under section 147/148.

Significant Holdings

"No addition can be made in respect of completed assessments in absence of any incriminating material."

"The foundation for making search assessments under section 153A/153C can be said to be the existence of incriminating material showing undisclosed income detected as a result of search."

"In case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the Assessing Officer cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments."

"The completed/unabated assessments can be reopened by the Assessing Officer in exercise of powers under section 147/148, subject to fulfilment of the conditions as envisaged under section 147/148 and those powers are saved."

"Authorization under section 133A (survey) is not equivalent to warrant of authorization under section 132 (search) and findings of survey cannot be used to invoke jurisdiction under sections 153A/153C."

"Expenditure incurred as penalty for violation of law cannot be allowed as revenue expenditure and cannot be capitalized."

Final determinations on each issue were as follows:

- The assessments framed under section 153C/143(3) without proper satisfaction and incriminating material were quashed and additions deleted for AYs 2014-15 to 2021-22.

- Additions under section 68 for unsecured loans and disallowance of interest were deleted as loans were accepted and disclosed in earlier assessments and no incriminating material was found.

- Additions on suppression of sales based on survey documents were deleted as survey findings cannot be used for section 153C assessments.

- Disallowance of GMC tax and related depreciation was remanded for verification; disallowance under section 40A(3) was upheld; sundry subscription disallowance was deleted.

- The Revenue was directed to consider reassessment under section 147/148 in accordance with law and CBDT instructions.

---