TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 1343
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... A.Y. 2011-12 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench D ['Tribunal' for short]. 2. The Revenue has raised the following substantial question of law arising from the impugned judgement and order passed by the Tribunal: "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ITAT has erred in quashing the assessment proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act by holding that the amended provision would not apply to those proceedings emerging from searches initiated prior to 01.06.2015 without appreciating that when the Assessing Officer assumed jurisdiction for initiation of proceedings under section 153C of the Act, the amended provisions had already been brought into effect?" 3. At the outset, learned advocate Mr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing of the assess as well as no address of the assessee has been mentioned. Further more there was also no reference of registration number of sale deed etc on such document. It was submitted by the assessee that the seized documents from the searched assessee were not confirmed and the loose papers were not binding on the assessee as the same did not belong to the assessee at all. It was therefore submitted that the Assessing Officer could not have issued notice u/s. 153C of the Act by invoking amendment made with effect from 01.06.2015 to search carried out in the year 2013 so as to apply the amendment retrospectively. 8. The Assessing Officer, however, completed the assessment relying upon the documents found during the course of the se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he incriminating documents on the basis of which the assessment was framed must "belong" to the assessee. From the contents of the assessment order and the observations made by Ld.CIT(Appeals), even the assessing officer has not alleged that the documents "belonged" to the assessee and the AO has himself stated in the order that the documents "pertain" to the assessee. Therefore, in the instant set of facts, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) wherein he has held that since the documents do not "belong" to the assessee, then in light of the various judicial precedents, including the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court decision on this subject, the additions are not liable to be sustained." 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... where, though incriminating material pertaining to a third party / person was found during search proceedings under Section 132, the Revenue could not proceed against such a third party, which necessitated the legislature / Parliament to clarify by substituting the words "belongs or belong to" to the words "pertains or pertain to" and to remedy the mischief that was noted pursuant to the judgment of the Delhi High Court. Therefore, if the submission on behalf of the respective respondents - assessees that despite the fact that the incriminating materials have been found in the form of books of account or documents or assets relating to them from the premises of the searched person, still they may not be subjected to the proceedings under S....