TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1475
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5. Ludhiana [CIT(A)] dated 01-05-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. AO u/s 153C of the Act on 31- 03-2022. The sole grievance of the revenue is deletion of addition of Rs. 370 Lacs as made by Ld. AO in the assessment order. The assessee, in its cross-objection, assails jurisdiction of Ld. AO u/s 153C on the ground that no satisfaction note was recorded by AO of searched person as well as the AO of the assessee. In such a case, impugned assessments framed u/s 153C would be liable to be quashed. To support the same, reliance has been placed on various judicial decisions, the copies of which have been placed on record. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal & cross-objection stands disposed-off as under. Assessment Proceedings 2.1 Facts as emanating from the assessment order are that the assessee belongs to Kewal Kishan Chhabra group of cases in whose case search was conducted u/s 132 on 28-11-2018. The case was transferred from ACIT, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana to DCIT, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vide order u/s 127 dated 27-01-2020. Consequently, Notice u/s 153C was issued to the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he time of search and therefore, any documents as recovered from his possession could not be automatically linked to the assessee-firm. No incriminating material was found during search on assessee. Accordingly, impugned addition was deleted against which the revenue is in further appeal before us. The legal grounds as urged by the assessee were held to be academic in nature against which the assessee has filed corss-objections. Our findings and Adjudication 4. First, we take up the issue of satisfaction note since the same goes to the root of the matter and questions the very jurisdiction of Ld. AO u/s 153C. From the facts, it is quite clear that the assessment has been framed u/s 153C which require recording of objective satisfaction by Assessing Officer of searched person as well as that of assessee.In the present case, the revenue is unable to show any such satisfaction note despite being provided with various opportunities. The same is also not emanating from the assessment order. It also emerges that impugned addition of alleged unexplained investment is not based on any incriminating material as unearthed during the course of search on the assessee. The impugned additi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iously is to avoid multiplicity of assessment or reassessment proceedings in respect of the same assessment year or years. Once Section 153A is found to be applicable, there will be only one assessment in respect of each of the six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search is conducted, in which the "total income" of the assessee will be assessed or reassessed. It should be remembered that only the pending assessment or reassessment proceedings in respect of any those six assessment years that will abate; in case the assessment or reassessment for any of those 6 years have already been completed as on the date of search then there is no question of any of them abating for the simple reason that what can abate is only what remains pending. 14. Now there can be a situation when during the search conducted on one person under Section 132, some documents or valuable assets or books of account belonging to some other person, in whose case the search is not conducted, may be found. In such case, the Assessing Officer has to first be satisfied under Section 153C, which provides for the assessment of income of any ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nfringe any rights of the petitioner or curtail or curb his right to be heard by the Assessing Officer or to file appeals and question the assessments made pursuant to the notice under Section 153A. There is no ground for any apprehension that the petitioner will not be heard before the assessments or reassessments for the six assessment years are completed. In fact, in the case of the petitioner itself the Assessing Officer has not made any addition in the assessments completed under Section 153A read with Section 153C for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2006-07 and 2008-09. He has made the addition of Rs. 86 crores only in the assessment year 2007-08 against which an appeal has already been filed, as stated by the ld. senior standing counsel. This also finds mention in para VI of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent. Thus, full opportunity of being heard is available, and in fact was made available to the petitioner herein to represent against the proposed assessments or reassessments. The apprehension expressed by Mr. Bajpai, ld. senior counsel for the petitioner seems to be futile and spartan in the present case, as no adverse order/ addition has been made except in on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd from the premises of erstwhile partner of the assessee firm and not from the assessee or present partners. Shri Sumit Jindal accepted the papers and identified the names as mentioned in the said documents. The legal presumption u/s 292C would go against Shri Sumit Jindal only. Except for two entries as carried out through banking channels, there was no material to indicate that other entries had also gone for the benefit of the assessee. The document does not prove that except for two amounts of Rs. 25 Lacs and Rs. 0.25 Lacs as credited in the bank of assessee-firm, the other entries also pertained to the assessee-firm. Shri Sumit Jindal was not partner in the firm at the time of search and therefore, any documents as recovered from his possession could not be automatically linked to the assessee-firm. No incriminating material was found during search on assessee. Accordingly, the impugned addition has rightly been deleted even on merits. In the result, the revenue's appeal stands dismissed. Assessment Years 2017-18& 2018-19 8. It is admitted position that the facts as well as issues in revenue's appeal as well as in assessee's cross-objection for AY 2017-18 are quite iden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....18,906/- The impugned addition as made by Ld. AO was thus restricted to the extent of Rs. 59.19 Lacs. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 9.3 From the facts, it clearly emerges that the assessee's case was scrutinized on the basis of search action on the other group. It was alleged that the assessee made higher investment in cash in construction of stated project. However, there is no concrete material as found during the course of search which has been referred to by Ld. AO in the assessment order to support the said allegation. The whole basis of impugned addition is DVO valuation which is always subjective valuation. There is no finding that the assessee actually made cash investment in the construction of the aforesaid property. 9.4 Proceeding further, it could be seen that for this year, the assessee has made investment of Rs. 112.38 Lacs whereas Ld. DVO has arrived at valuation of Rs. 228.76 Lacs. The Ld. AO has concurred that benefit of self-supervision was to be allowed to the extent of 10% on the differential amount only. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the same on the gross valuation as made by DVO. 9.5 The Ld. AR has urged that the books of the ass....