TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (8) TMI 898
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3.2012 on the Jaipuria Group. It is the case of the Revenue that during the said operation certain documents "belonging" to the petitioner were found. Consequently, the Assessing Officer of the Jaipuria Group prepared a Satisfaction Note dated 29.07.2013 to the effect that the documents mentioned therein belonged to the petitioner. It is thereafter that the Satisfaction Note as well as the said documents were symbolically handed over to the Assessing Officer of the petitioner. We use the expression "symbolically handed over" because of the fact that the Assessing Officer of the Jaipuria Group and the Assessing of the petitioner was one and the same person. It is thereafter that the said Assessing Officer issued notices to the petitioner, all dated 02.08.2013, under Section 153C of the said Act seeking to reopen the assessments of the petitioner for the years 2006-2007 to 2011-2012 and to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 153A of the said Act. 3. In response to the said notices, the petitioner submitted its objections on 09.10.2013. Those objections were rejected by an order dated 02.12.2013 passed by the Assessing Officer. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner, being aggrie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al presumption is that the said document belongs to that person. It is for the Assessing Officer to rebut that presumption and come to a conclusion or "satisfaction" that the document in fact belongs to somebody else. There must be some cogent material available with the Assessing Officer before he/she arrives at the satisfaction that the seized document does not belong to the searched person but to somebody else. Surmise and conjecture cannot take the place of "satisfaction". xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx "11. It is evident from the above satisfaction note that apart from saying that the documents belonged to the petitioner and that the Assessing Officer is satisfied that it is a fit case for issuance of a notice under Section 153C, there is nothing which would indicate as to how the presumptions which are to be normally raised as indicated above, have been rebutted by the Assessing Officer. Mere use or mention of the word "satisfaction" or the words "I am satisfied" in the order or the note would not meet the requirement of the concept of satisfaction as used in Section 153C of the said Act. The satisfaction note itself must display the reasons or basis for the conclusion that the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n favour of the tax payer and against the revenue. 20. In the present case we do not find anything wrong in the satisfaction note and the forwarding of the entire matter by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-III (2), Ahmedabad to the Assessing Officer of the petitioner at Bareilly. All the requirements of Section 153(c) were complied with by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-III (2), Ahmedabad. A search under Section 132A was carried out and bullion was seized. The case was selected for compulsory scrutiny for six assessment years. The assessee established that the seized silver belongs to M/s Sarvesh Jewellers, Bareilly - the petitioner. The ownership and consignment of the petitioner was also confirmed by the Assessing Officer of the petitioner at Bareilly. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-III (2), Ahmedabad did not commit any error in law, in recording the satisfaction note requesting the petitioner"s Assessing officer to proceed under Section 153(c) of the I.T. Act. 21. After the assessment of the person in respect of whom search action was carried out is completed, the officer under Section 153C, where he find that seized articles belong to some other person, has to forward a satisfaction n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and seizure action u/s 132(1) of I.T. Act, 1961 was carried out on 27.03.2012 and during the course of search and seizure action certain documents/papers were found and seized. The following documents which were found and seized during the course of search and seizure action u/s 132 (1) of I.T. Act, 1961 are found to be belonging to M/s Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. (PAN: AAACP1272G) over which the jurisdiction lies with the undersigned: Party/Annx./Page No. Description of Annexure B-2/A-11/34-35 These two pages are the 10 years Cumulative Redeemable preference Shares of Rupees.10/- each, purchased by M/s PepsiCo India Holding Ltd. from M/s Tripty Drinks Ltd. And 10 years Cumulative Redeemable Preference Shares of Rs. 10/- each, purchased by M/s PepsiCo India Holding Ltd. from M/s SMV Beverages Ltd. B-2/A-14/60 This is a cheque of Rs. 1,66,84002/- in favour of Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. issued by M/s Neetar Beverages Pvt. Ltd. on 30/6/2012. B-2/A-14/61 This is the cheque of Rs. 60000000/- in favour of Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. issued by M/s Neetar Beverages Pvt. Ltd. on 31.05.2011. B-2/A-14/62 This is the cheque of Rs. 60000000/- in favour of Pepsico India Ho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Redeemable Preference Shares purchased by PepsiCo India Holdings Private Limited from M/s. Tripty Drinks Limited and M/s. SMV Beverages Limited. The second set of documents are cheques found in the cheque books of the Jaipuria Group companies. These cheques are unsigned and they are the original leaves in the cheque books themselves which belonged to the Jaipuria Group of companies. Though, it must be pointed out that the cheques had been written in favour of PepsiCo India Holdings Private Limited. The third document is a photocopy of a Supply and Loan Agreement made on 01.10.2010 between Pearl Drinks Limited and PepsiCo India Holdings Private Limited. 11. In the objections furnished by the petitioner, it had specifically taken the point that the photocopies of the preference shares do not belong to the petitioner. The photocopies belong to the Jaipuria Group. It was, however, stated that the original preference shares certificates are with the petitioner and it is the originals which belong to them and not the copies. It was also contended by the petitioner in the objections that the unsigned cheques could, by no stretch of imagination, belong to the petitioner as they had not e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e., the searched person). In the Satisfaction Note, which is the subject matter of these writ petitions, there is nothing therein to indicate that the seized documents do not belong to the Jaipuria Group. This is even apart from the fact that, as we have noted above, there is no disclaimer on the part of the Jaipuria Group insofar as these documents are concerned. 15. Secondly, we may also observe that the finding of photocopies in the possession of a searched person does not necessarily mean and imply that they "belong" to the person who holds the originals. Possession of documents and possession of photocopies of documents are two separate things. While the Jaipuria Group may be the owner of the photocopies of the documents it is quite possible that the originals may be owned by some other person. Unless it is established that the documents in question, whether they be photocopies or originals, do not belong to the searched person, the question of invoking Section 153C of the said Act does not arise. 16. Thirdly, we would also like to make it clear that the assessing officers should not confuse the expression "belongs to" with the expressions "relates to" or "refers to". A regi....