TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 829
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....VR-2 and AVR-5 were found and seized from the possession of Shri Ashok Verma, Vice President of M/s. Naresh Kumar & Co. In his statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act, Shri Verma admitted that entries recorded on pages 35 and 38 of AVR-2 pertained to M/s. Tycoons Industries Pvt. Ltd. i.e. the appellant company herein. In the entry recorded in his order sheet on 12.07.2011, the A.O. noted that in the course of search certain incriminating documents including bills, vouchers relating to M/s. Tycoons Industries Pvt. Ltd. were found and seized. Later at the time of verification of such document, it was ascertained that documents marked as AVR-2 pages 1 to 24, 35 to 39 and AVR-5 pages 9 to 15 belonged to M/s. Tycoons Industries Pvt. Ltd. of 11, British Indian Street, Kolkata - 700 069. Accordingly, the A.O. recorded his satisfaction in terms of section 153C of the Act and issued notices for assessment of six years. Pursuant to such notices, the A.O. passed the order under section 153C / 143(3) dated 28.12.2011 wherein he assessed the unaccounted commission income of Rs. 1,70,000/- and Rs. 1,82,000/- in the assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively. Aggrieved by the sai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submitted that the very nature of notings in the seized documents clearly suggested that pages 35 and 38 did not 'belong' to TIPL i.e. the appellant company herein. As regards the reference made by the Ld. CIT(A) in pages 15 to 24 of AVR-2, which were computer print outs of M/s. S.K.S. Infrastructure Ltd., the learned AR submitted that ex-facie the document belonged to other entity, M/s. S.K.S. Infrastructure Ltd. and not that of the appellant. Merely because M/s. S.K.S. Infrastructure Ltd. shared the same business address with the appellant, could not lead to conclusion that the seized computer print-outs 'belonged' to the appellant. The learned AR, therefore, strongly urged that since none of the seized document referred to by the A.O. and Ld. CIT(A) 'belonged' to the appellant, the very assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C of the Act by the A.O. was bad in law and therefore, the consequent order passed deserved to be cancelled. 5. On the other hand, the learned DR vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities. According to him, the proceedings u/s 153C would be validly initiated if the documents found in the course of search 'related' to the person against whom the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person." 8. The learned AR pointed out that the impugned assessment order as well as the appellate orders were passed prior to the amendment made in section 153C by the Finance Act, 2015 and therefore, the un-amended provisions of section 153C governed the appellant's case. As per the provision of section 153C as they stood prior to 2015, it was necessary for the Revenue to prove that the incriminating documents seized in the course of search 'belonged' to a person who was not the person searched. It is only in such cases that the A.O. of the person searched, was first required to record his satisfaction that seized documents belonged to such third person and thereafter delink the seized documents of third party from the searched persons file and thereafter transfer the relevant seized documents to the A.O. of such third person who thereafter has to record his satisfaction and then initiate proceedings under section 153C of the Act. The learned AR submitted that in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der, the Ld. CIT(A) also has extracted pages 17, 18, 19 and 20 of AVR-2 which are computer print outs of account of M/s. S.K.S. Infrastructure Ltd. which shared the common office address with the appellant. Ex-facie these computer print outs belonged to M/s. S.K.S. Infrastructure Ltd. and not that of the appellant, which is separate juristic entity. Save and except the documents discussed in the foregoing, the Revenue did not bring on record any other seized documents which was proved to be belonging to the appellant so as to justify invocation of section 153C of the Act. 11. As regards the learned DR reference to section 153C as it now exists, we find that the expression 'related to' has been inserted and was made effective only from 01.06.2015. Till the amendment in 153C was carried out by 2015, before invoking section 153C it was mandatory for the Revenue to prove that the incriminating documents seized belonged to the third person who has not been searched and after recording the required satisfaction as mandated by the section, then only could have invoked section 153C of the Act. Section 153C in such cases mandated the A.O. of the person searched, AO to first record his sa....