TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 56
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e covered. Large number of 'incriminating' documents and loose papers were found and seized. Examination of pages no. 29 & 30 of annexure A-ll, seized by party ZO-1, from the premises of M/s Gee Ispat Private Limited, reveals an account between M/s. Esteem Textiles Private Limited & Gee Ispat Private, Limited. Further page no. 4 of annexure AS seized from the same premises reveals investments made by M/s Esteem Textiles Private Limited in the share capital of M/s. Gee Ispat Private Limited. Further details are not completely available Annexure A-1, page no. 28 exhibits an investment of Rs. 5 lac in the share capital of M/s Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd. No Warrant of Authorization was issued in the name of M/s. Esteem Textiles Private Limited, thus no action in the case of the assessee company could be initiated under section 153A of the Act. On the basis of documents found and seized belonging to M/s Esteem Textiles Private Limited. I am satisfied that the case of the assessee company is covered under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, notices under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are issued for the assessment years 2004-05 to 2009-10. 3. Subsequently, l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y indicate pertaining to having a right or possession. Whether such a document is disclosed by other person or not, may not have much bearing as far as the Assessing Officer of the person searched is concerned since he has to only be prima facie satisfied that such assets, etc. belong to other person. In support of this contention, learned DR referred to a plethora of case laws which includes the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of E.N.Gopakumar vs CIT (2016) 75 Taxmann.com215 (Kerala) etc. 6. Per contra, it is the argument of the learned AR that none of the documents seized from the premises of M/s Gee Ispat P. Ltd. belonging to the assessee, as such, the jurisdiction u/s 153C of the Act was wrongly invoked by the AO in this matter and was rightly held so by the learned CIT(A). Placing reliance on the decision reported in Pepsi Food Ltd. vs ITO, 367 ITR 112 (Del) and M/s Pepsi India Ltd. vs ACIT, 370 ITR 295, he submitted that whenever a document is found from a person, who is being searched, normal presumption is that the said documents belongs to the person searched. It is for the AO to rebut that presumption and come to a conclusion or satisfaction that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ocuments or the contents thereof. The real question is whether do they constitute any document or account belonging to or pertain to the assessee u/s 153C of the Act. 9. On this aspect, learned CIT(A) observed as follows: "3.8 .......Page No. 29 and 30 Annexure A-l are duplicate copies of confirmation of accounts of the appellant company in the books of M/s Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd. From the contents of the said pages, it is seen that the confirmation of accounts is in the form of letter addressed by M/s Gee" Ispat Pvt. Ltd. to the appellant company requesting them to confirm the accounts as appearing 'in their books and return the same after putting their signature and seal. The appellant has given signature and seal on the left hand bottom of the said letter. Thus it is clear that the document is a letter written by M/s Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd. and the sa has been returned to them by the appellant after putting its signature and seal confirmation of the accounts. This shows that the document belonged to Gee Ispa and not to the appellant. Further this is a document which is confirming the accounts as appearing in the books of accounts of Gee Ispat. 3.9 The second document namely page 4 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecurities Ltd. (supra) at page nos. 33 and 36 are relevant and are reproduced below: "33. The record slip belongs to the Assessee and, therefore, the action of the AO of the searched persons recording that the same belongs to the Assessee cannot be faulted. However, the question then arises is whether the AO of the Assessee was justified in taking further steps for reassessing the income of the Assessee in respect of the assessment years for which the assessments were concluded and in respect of which the seized document had no bearing. In our view, the same would be clearly impermissible as the seized material now available with the AO, admittedly, had no nexus with those assessments and was wholly irrelevant for the purpose of assessing the income of the Assessee for the years in question. Merely because a valuable article or document belonging to an Assessee is seized from the possession of a person searched under Section 132 of the Act, does not mean that the concluded assessments of the Assessee are necessarily to be re-opened under Section 153C of the Act. In our view, the concluded assessments cannot be interfered with mechanically and solely for the reason that a document....