2025 (8) TMI 58 - HC - Income Tax

No Hard Copy Books Seized Under Section 133A; Certified Copies Provided, Assessment Orders Upheld

Lunkad Media And Entertainment Ltd. And Others Versus Union Of India, Parkson Securities Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax 3 (1) And Others, Lunkad Securities Ltd., Rajvir Marketing And Investment Limited, Lunkad Media And Entertainment Ltd., Lunkad Securities Ltd. And Others, Lunkad Securities Ltd., West End Management Technologies Pvt. Limited, Parkson Securities Limited, Rajvir Marketing And Investment Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 (1) And Others

Lunkad Media And Entertainment Ltd. And Others Versus Union Of India, Parkson Securities Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax 3 (1) And ... ISSUES: Whether the survey conducted under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was lawfully authorized and within the scope of the statutory powers.Whether entry into and search of residential premises adjoining business premises during the survey was lawful under Section 133A of the Act.Whether seizure and retention of books of account and other documents during the survey complied with the procedural safeguards under Section 133A(3)(ia) of the Act.Whether the impounded documents, including loose papers and unsigned calculations, can be treated as 'books of account' attributable to the assessee for the purpose of assessment.Whether denial of access to the original seized records during assessment and appellate proceedings violated principles of natural justice and rendered the assessment orders invalid.Whether the survey operation was in substance a 'search' attracting the provisions of Sections 153A to 153D of the Act, and if so, whether the assessments passed without following the procedure under these sections are valid.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) erred in dismissing appeals without remanding the matter despite deficiencies in supply and authentication of seized documents.Whether additions made under Section 68 of the Act on the basis of unexplained share application money and cash deposits were justified in absence of proper books of account. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The survey under Section 133A of the Act was lawfully authorized and conducted within the statutory scope; the survey authorization pertained to the business premises and not the residential premises.Entry into the residential premises was unlawful as Section 133A does not permit survey of residential premises distinct from business premises; however, this did not vitiate the entire survey operation.Seizure and retention of documents under Section 133A(3)(ia) require recording of specific and detailed reasons; mere use of the word 'incriminating' was held insufficient, but in the present case, the retention was upheld as the documents were relevant and connected to business activities.Loose papers and unsigned calculations, when corroborated by bank statements and other material, can be treated as 'books of account' attributable to the assessee for assessment purposes, distinguishing from the precedent relied upon by the petitioners.Denial of access to original seized records was addressed by directions to supply certified copies; since the petitioners failed to file any application alleging non-compliance, the contention of denial of natural justice was rejected.The survey operation was not a 'search' within the meaning of Sections 153A to 153D of the Act; thus, assessments passed without following the procedure under these sections are valid.The ITAT did not err in dismissing appeals without remand, as adequate opportunity was given and certified copies of documents were supplied in compliance with court directions.Additions made under Section 68 of the Act were justified on the basis of corroborated material and unexplained cash deposits, notwithstanding absence of traditional books of account. RATIONALE: The Court applied the statutory framework of the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly Sections 133A, 132, 143(3), 144, 147, 153A to 153D, and procedural safeguards therein.The Court distinguished between 'survey' under Section 133A and 'search' under Section 132, emphasizing that survey powers are limited and do not extend to residential premises not connected to business.The requirement under Section 133A(3)(ia) to record reasons for seizure was interpreted strictly, but factual findings supported the retention of documents as relevant to the business investigation.The Court relied on precedents including the Apex Court's judgment in Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla & others, clarifying the evidentiary value of loose papers as books of account when corroborated by other evidence.The principle of natural justice was upheld by ensuring supply of certified copies of seized documents; failure to challenge compliance negated claims of denial of opportunity.The Court rejected the appellants' attempt to recharacterize the survey as a search based solely on an internal letter, holding that procedural safeguards applicable to search do not apply to survey operations.The Court affirmed the ITAT's factual findings and concurrent orders, declining to interfere absent any jurisdictional error or procedural illegality.The Court recognized the legitimacy of assessment additions based on corroborated evidence of unexplained cash credits and share application money, even in the absence of traditional books of account.