Reassessment u/s 147 Based on Third-Party Search Held Invalid; Only Section 153C Route Open, PCIT 263 Fails

ITAT Pune allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that the reassessment initiated u/s 147 based on search material relating to another person was invalid, as the proper statutory route was u/s 153C. Relying on precedent from HC and coordinate benches, ITAT held that in such circumstances the Revenue's only recourse is to proceed u/s 153C and not by issuing notice u/s 148. Consequently, as the very foundation assessment was void, the PCIT's order u/s 263 setting aside the reassessment for "proper verification" was rendered infructuous.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether additional legal grounds challenging the very jurisdiction of reassessment and revision could be admitted at the appellate stage.

1.2 Whether, on facts where information emanated from search and seizure in the case of a third party and seized material related to the assessee, the proper statutory route was assessment under section 153C read with section 153A, and not reassessment under section 147/148.

1.3 Whether, upon holding that proceedings under section 147/148 were invalid for want of jurisdiction, the revisional order passed under section 263 setting aside the order disposing of objections to such reassessment could survive.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Admission of additional legal grounds

Legal framework (as discussed by the Tribunal)

2.1 The Tribunal referred to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT and Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT permitting raising of pure questions of law, going to the root of the matter, at the appellate stage where all necessary facts are already on record.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.2 The additional grounds challenged: (i) the very legality of invoking section 147 instead of section 153C in a search-related matter; and (ii) the consequential validity and efficacy of the section 263 order. These were purely legal issues, not requiring fresh fact-finding, and arose from facts already on record.

Conclusions

2.3 The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds for adjudication.

Issue 2 - Whether assessment ought to have been under section 153C and not under section 147/148

Legal framework (as discussed by the Tribunal)

2.4 The Tribunal examined sections 147, 153A, and 153C as interpreted in:

(a) Judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in Sejal Jewellery & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., holding that where the foundation for action against a person is material found during search in the case of another person, the correct course is to proceed under section 153C read with section 153A, and not under section 147.

(b) Supreme Court decision in Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. explaining that in search situations, assessment must be under section 153A/153C, and reassessment under sections 147/148 is preserved only where no incriminating material is found in search.

(c) Rajasthan High Court decision in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal and other High Court decisions cited in Sejal Jewellery, emphasizing the overriding and special nature of sections 153A/153C in search/requisition cases.

(d) Co-ordinate Bench decision in ITO v. Narendra Sampatlal Bafna, which, on similar facts involving search in the case of Shri Sachin Nahar and seized material relating to a borrower, held that recourse should have been to section 153C and not 147, thereby invalidating the reassessment.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.5 In the present case, the entire basis for action against the assessee was information and documents emanating from a search and seizure operation under section 132 conducted in the case of Shri Sachin Nahar, a finance broker.

2.6 The seized notebooks and documents, decoded and examined by the Investigation Wing and Central Circle, were stated to contain entries of cash loans and interest, including entries allegedly relating to the assessee; these materials were shared with the Assessing Officer and formed the sole foundation for the "reason to believe" under section 147.

2.7 The Tribunal, following the reasoning of the jurisdictional High Court in Sejal Jewellery and its own earlier decision in Narendra Sampatlal Bafna (also arising out of the search on Shri Sachin Nahar and similar information-sharing), held that where information "relates to" another person and arises from seized material, the correct mechanism is section 153C.

2.8 The use of section 147 in such a situation runs contrary to the scheme of sections 153A/153C, which commence with non obstante clauses overriding sections 139, 147, 148, 149, 151, and 153 and constitute a special code for search-related assessments.

2.9 The Tribunal noted that the contrary view relied upon by the Department from the Delhi High Court in PCIT v. Naveen Kumar Gupta could not prevail in the face of the binding jurisdictional High Court decision in Sejal Jewellery, which squarely applied on analogous facts.

Conclusions

2.10 The Tribunal held that in the present factual matrix, the only proper course of action available to the Revenue was to proceed under section 153C read with section 153A, and not by way of reassessment under section 147/148.

2.11 Consequently, the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147/148 were held to be invalid and void.

Issue 3 - Effect of invalidity of section 147 proceedings on exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 263

Interpretation and reasoning

2.12 The order revised under section 263 was the Assessing Officer's order dated 13.12.2021 disposing of objections to notice under section 148 and thereby dropping the reassessment proceedings.

2.13 Once it was held that the very initiation of proceedings under section 147/148 was without jurisdiction, any consequential or collateral proceedings, including the revisional order under section 263 built upon such reassessment proceedings, would lack legal foundation.

2.14 The Tribunal therefore considered that the revision order, which sought to revive and regularise an invalid reassessment route, became infructuous.

Conclusions

2.15 The Tribunal quashed the order passed under section 263 as infructuous, since it rested upon reassessment proceedings held to be void for not having been initiated under section 153C.

2.16 Having allowed the appeal on this jurisdictional ground, the Tribunal treated all other grounds, including factual and adequacy-of-enquiry aspects under section 263, as academic and did not adjudicate them.

---