AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 1310
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee on 12.02.2013 stating that the return originally filed by it u/s 139 may be treated as the return filed in response to notice u/s 153C of the I.T. Act, 1961. As noticed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee had purchased a land measuring 14 Bighas and 11 Biswa vide Agreement dated 31.11.2009 for Rs. 9,00,000/- at Village Rojka Gujar, District- Sohna, Haryana and the same was subsequently sold on 17.02.2010 for Rs. 40,92,187/-. Since the capital gain arising from the said sale was not disclosed by the assessee in the return of income filed for the year under consideration, the assessee was required by the Assessing Officer to offer its explanation in this regard. In reply, it was submitted by the assessee that the land at Village Rojka Gujar, District- Sohna, Haryana was not a capital asset as it was an agricultural land situated 8 kilometers away from the municipal limits of Gurgaon Municipal Corporation. A certificate dated 12.03.2010 to this effect issued by the Tehsildar, Sohna (Haryana) was relied upon by the assessee to support and substantiate its case. On perusal of the relevant sale deed, the Assessing Officer, however, noticed that the nature and quality of lan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aon Division and the Divisional Commissioner, Gurgaon establish beyond doubt that no agricultural operations could have been performed on the lands at village Rojka Gujar where ownership was joint and not identifiable and the soil was rocky and barren. They also reveal that fraud was committed and interpolations were made by the local revenue officers in the record of rights. Hence, the documents of Jama Bandi and Girdwari, cited by the appellant, were not reliable pieces of evidence. The authorities also noted that the fraud had led to subsequent acts, such as mutation, which too had to be 'deleted'. Hence, no credence can be placed on the mutation deed filed by the appellant. In the absence of feasibility of agricultural operations on the lands at village Rojka Gujar, the appellant could not have derived agricultural income. Since the lands in question were not agricultural, it constituted a capital asset and the surplus arising on account of its sale was correctly subjected to capital gains tax by the AO at Rs. 31,92,187. As a result, grounds 1 to 7 of the appeal are dismissed. Appeal against the initiation of penalty proceedings is premature and hence ground 8 of the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee contended that the first seized document was a copy of current account of the assessee company with Syndicate Bank and since the said account was duly disclosed by the assessee company in its return of income, the same was not in the nature of incriminating document. He contended that the other seized document contained the details of property owned by the group companies including the assessee company and since the property mentioned therein was duly disclosed by the assessee company, the said document also was not in the nature of any incriminating document. He invited our attention to the copy of the said seized documents placed at page 12G and 12H of his Paper Book and contended that the property of the assessee at Village Rojka Gujar, District- Sohna, Haryana sold during the year under consideration did not find any mention in the said document. He contended that there was thus nothing incriminating in both the seized documents relied upon by the Assessing Officer for initiating the proceedings u/s 153C and even in the assessment completed u/s 153C/143(3), the Assessing Officer has neither referred to nor relied upon any of these two documents. He contended that thes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the requirement of section 153C to initiate the proceedings u/s 153C is specific and limited and the word "incriminating" cannot be read into while interpreting the plain, simple and clear provisions of section 153C as sought by the ld. counsel for the assessee. 10. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the relevant material available on record. It is observed that a search and seizure action u/s 132 was conducted in Tinna Group of cases on 11.11.2010 and after being satisfied that certain documents found during the course of the said search were belonging to the assessee, proceedings u/s 153C were initiated by the Assessing Officer in the case of the assessee on 16.11.2012. As explained by the ld. counsel for the assessee, the period available for issue of notice u/s 143(2) by that time had expired and the assessment for the year under consideration in the case of the assessee having filed his return of income u/s 139 was finalized leaving a limited scope of assessment u/s 153C of the Act. 11. A copy of satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer on 16.11.2012 is placed on record by the ld. counsel for the assessee at page 12E of the Paper Book an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Lordships that merely because for document belonging to the assessee is found from the possession of a person searched u/s 132 of the Act, it does not mean that the concluded assessments of the assessee are necessarily to be reopened u/s 153C of the Act. It was held that the concluded assessment cannot be interfered with mechanically and solely for the reason that a document belonging to the assessee, which has no bearing on the assessments of the assessee for the years preceding the search, was seized from the possession of searched persons. It was held that when the documents seized had no relevance or bearing on the income of the assessee for the relevant assessment years and could not possibly reflect any undisclosed income, no investigation was necessary and the provisions of section 153C, which are to enable an investigation in respect of the seized asset, could not be resorted to. 13. By relying on the provisions of section 153C(1) as applicable in the present case, ld. DR has contended that the limited requirement for initiating proceedings u/s 153C in case of a person other than the person referred to in section 153A is only that the Assessing Officer was satisfied that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erson, the reference to the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A in the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 153A shall be construed as reference to the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person : Provided further that the Central Government may by rules made by it and published in the Official Gazette, specify the class or classes of cases in respect of such other person, in which the Assessing Officer shall not be required to issue notice for assessing or reassessing the total income for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made [and for the relevant assessment year or years as referred to in sub-section (1) of section 153A] except in cases where any assessment or reassessment has abated." 15. A comparative reading of the pre-amended and amended provisions of section 153C clearly shows that the requirement to initiate proceedings u/s 153C in case of a person other than the person referred to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the case of RRJ Securities (supra) and ARN Infrastructure India Ltd. vs. CIT, 394 ITR 569 that in order to justify the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C of the Act, the documents seized must be incriminating. In the said case, it was contended like in the present case on behalf of the Revenue that the requirement of having incriminating material found during the course of search was to be met only during the assessment and not for initiation of proceedings u/s 153C. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court, however, found this contention raised on behalf of the Revenue to be futile by observing that the satisfaction note forms the basis of initiating the proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. In the said case, two seized documents were referred to in the satisfaction note and since the Assessing Officer had finalized the assessment without making any addition on the basis of the said documents, it was held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that the said documents could not be said to be incriminating and consequently the essential requirement for assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C was not met. It is pertinent to note here that the assessment years involved in the case of Index Securities (P.) Lt....