TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 915
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hearing of the appeal was conducted after issue of proper notices to both the parties with a option to attend in virtual mode or in physical as it convenient. 4. First, we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA no. 232/JPR/2024 wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds: - "1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. AO assumed jurisdiction in the case of the assessee under Section 153C without recording proper satisfaction, alleging payment of on-money for the purchase of a flat, and without providing the satisfaction note as recorded by the AO of the searched person and the underlying documents on the basis of which allegations were levelled against the assessee. The action of the Id. AO is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary, and against the facts of the case. The proceedings initiated under Section 153C are liable to be quashed as being illegal and void ab initio. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") erred in giving directions to the ld. AO for making additions of Rs. 1,31,79,660 to the income of the assessee under Section 69, which is paid through banking channel ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. 1 That in law and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceeding initiated u/s 153C of the Act for A.Y. 2015-2016 is without jurisdiction, is barred by limitation, is void-ab-initio, is non-est in law, is illegal, is bad-in-law and deserves to be quashed & set-aside. 2 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") erred in giving directions to the ld. AO for making additions of Rs. 1,31,79,660 to the income of the assessee under Section 69, which is paid through banking channel and accepted by ld. AO. The action of the ld. DRP/AO is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary, and against the facts of the case, in spite of all evidence on record. Relief may please be granted by deleting the entire additions of Rs. 1,31,79,660 2 That in law and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment order dated 21.01.2025 passed u/s 153C r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 153B of the Act is void-ab-initio, is non-est in law, is illegal, is badin-law and deserves to be quashed & set-aside being barred by limitation. 3 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. DRP erred in giving direction to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Jain, the Accountant of the group at Jaipur (one of the key employee of Om Kothari Group) was recorded. The relied upon incriminating materials/documents/ data shows that the group along with other persons / associates engaged in the business of real estate also undertake unaccounted transactions and for that unaccounted receipts were found to have been received on the sale of flats in the project named "PALLACIA". 6.1. The documents and data so found and seized pertain to the assessee and these have bearing on the determination of total income of the assessee. Therefore, after recording satisfaction note on 27.03.2023 as per prerequisite condition laid down in provisions of section 153C of the Act, notices was issued for A.Y. 2015-2016 to 2021-2022 on 27.03.2023 by ld. AO which was duly served upon the assessee through e-filing portal. Return of income has been filed by the assessee in response to the notice u/s 153C of the Act on 26.04.2023. No additional income was declared in the return of income filed in response to the notice u/s 153C of the Act. 6.2. In the satisfaction note ld. AO based on the data extracted from the computer and mobiles etc. which was in large numbe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vidence ld. AO noted that the assessee Shri Sharad Kumar Bhandari and his spouse paid Rs. 55,00,000/- in cash against the book of flat no. G52 and the source of these amount remained to be explained. The documents which were relied upon, evidencing the modus operandi of the business runs by the person search upon were provided to the assessee company. Even the relied upon transaction note was also provided to the assessee along with the satisfaction note vide notice dated 06.12.2023. Thus, considering the digital data in Mobile phone of the key person of the search group found during the course of search is having a great evidentiary value and from the data so extracted it is proved that the assessee made cash payment against the purchase of property and the claim of the assessee that no cash payment was made was rejected and thereby the ld. AO issued a draft order proposing addition of Rs. 27,50,000/- based on the proportionate state of completion of the project where the assessee made the investment. Ld. AO divided 50 % of Rs. 55,00,000/- i.e. Rs. 27,50,000/- and spread that amount from A. Y. 2015- 16 to 2021-22. 7. Aggrieved with that draft order the so made by the ld. AO the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt made through cheque/bank channel payments are verified. The AO was focussed towards addition of Rs. 55,00,000/- (Rs.2500 (cash) 2200 sqft), for cash paid as 'on money'. Relevant portion of AO's observation is reproduced as under: e. In view of the discussion held in preceding paras, the panel members observed that once assessing officer, after considering all evidences found during search operation, arrived at purchase consideration value of flat, which in this case is Rs. 2,53,00,000/- [Rs.11,500 per sqft + 22 sqft], then next step for AO would be to find the payments made by the assessee from verified source and through banking channels and then only should have arrived at examining the cash transaction value. However, AO simply added cash component value @2500 per sqm only without verifying the payment made by assessee through the banking channels and from verified sources. f. As per agreement for sale furnished by the assessee, the sale price of flat was Rs. 2,08,00,000/-+ plus other expenditures i.e. Membership Fee, Annual Maintenance Charge & corpus fund etc and accordingly, assessee has claimed to make a payment of Rs. 2,29,61,900/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rce of payment of Rs. 1,20,10,610/- made by Mr Sharad Kumar Bhandari could not be ascertained and remains unverified. Accordingly, the Panel directs the AO to make an addition of Rs. 1,20,10,610/- towards unverified payment in the income of assessee for AY 2015-16. j. Further, based on the findings of the search operation, duly discussed by the Assessing Officer and as per discussions held in pre paras, it has been established that the total consideration for the flat was (c)2,53,00,000 determined at a rate of Rs. 11,500 per sqm (Rs.9,000 Cheque + Rs. 2,500 Cash) and assessee paid partly in cash as well as allegedly through cheques. Assessee has only shown payment details of Rs. 2,29,61,900/- out of which an amount of Rs. 1,20,10,610/- is still not verified due to non- availability of details of source of payment and bank statement of assessee (as already discussed in pre para). Accordingly, in the considered opinion of the Panel the balance payment of Rs. 23,38,100/- (Rs.2,53,00,000/- - Rs. 2,29,61,900/-) for which assessee offered no explanation, was paid by assessee in cash to the developer as 'on money' and liable to added in the income of assessee. Further, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ferred to assessee is its payment details, which in this instant case is 12.03.2015 which has found mentioned in the details provided by the assessee and also verified from bank entry by AO. This implies that assessee made all the documented payment i.e. Rs. 2,08,00,000/- towards purchase of flat by end of FY 2014-15. Accordingly, it would be prudent to hold that the cash payment was made by the assessee around/prior to this date. As per payment details furnished by the assessee, [reproduced at Page 13 above], the last payment towards purchase of flat was made on 12.03.2015 and this payment detail was duly verified by the bank entries as mentioned by the [14:30, 25/07/2025] Rohan Chatter: AO. Accordingly, the Panel opines that Assessee had made all the cash payments before this date i.e. 12.03.2015, and same should be taxed in relevant assessment year i.e. AY 2015-16. This was further strengthened by the fact that as per clause (9) of Agreement for sale dated 07.06.2013, the possession of the flat to be given to purchaser within 30 (thirty) months of date of execution of agreement which falls in calendar year 2015 and most of the payments are reasonably assumed to be paid by assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 69 of the Act. FACTUAL BACKDROP 1. That the humble assessee is an Individual and is a non-resident Indian living outside India for past more than 40 years. He is regularly filing his return of income from year to year of the income earned and taxable in India as per the provisions of the Act. Copy of ITR filed for A.Y. 2015-2016 is at PB 44. 2. That a search was carried out at the premises of M/s. OM Kothari Group on 13.07.2020. 3. That the Assessing Officer after recording satisfaction note on 27.03.2023, issued notices dated 27.03.2023 u/s. 153C of the Act to the assessee for the assessment years 2015-2016 to 2021-2022[PB 45-51].Return in compliance to notice u/s. 153C was filed by the assessee on 26.04.2023. 4. That the Assessing Officer issued a notice dated 12.10.2023 [PB 52-56] u/s. 142(1) of the Act to the assessee for the assessment years 2015-2016 to 2021- 2022 wherein details were sought. Assessee vide replies dated 18.10.2023 & 21.10.2023 sought copy of satisfaction note and other relevant material on the basis of which notices u/s. 153C were issued [PB 57-58]. 5. That the Assessing Officer issued a notice dated 06.12.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....20.00 RTGS / SBBJR52015120301861475 from SBBJ Capital Gain A/c No. 61192561563 Total 10,951,290.00 Total of 1 & 2 22,961,900.00 7. That the source of payment made by the assessee to the builder is the sale consideration received by the assessee of Rs. 2,12,50,000/- on sale of immovable property vide registered sale deed dated 29.01.2013 whereby the Long Term Capital Gains earned by the assessee was deposited under Capital Gains Account scheme wherefrom the amount was paid to the builder [PB 180-183]. The said document was shown to the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. He was satisfied and hence, no adverse view was taken. 8. That the Assessing Officer passed order disposing objections raised by the assessee vide order dated 12.03.2024 [PB 116-120] to which reply dated 14.03.2024[PB 121-123]was submitted by the assessee. 9. That the Assessing Officer issued show cause notice dated 19.03.2024[PB 124-129] proposing to make additions in the hands of the assessee & Smt. Juhi Bhandari spread over A.Y. 2015-2016 to 2021-2022 towards the 'on-money paid' by the assessee on the basis of % completion me....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oring the applications & submissions of the assessee, in a hurried manner issued order dated 19.12.2024 [PB 185-210] wherein it directed that the income for A.Y. 2015-2016 be enhanced by Rs. 1,20,10,610/- u/s. 69 of the Act, i.e., the amount paid by the assessee during A.Y. 2013-2014 (Rs. 32,16,408/-), A.Y. 2014-2015 (Rs. 5,39,282/-), A.Y. 2015-2016 (Rs. 82,54,920/-) through Account Payee Cheques to the Builder on the ground that source of such payments has not been explained. The entire addition of Rs. 1,20,10,610/- was directed to made in A.Y. 2015-2016 when part of the payment made by the assessee pertained to A.Y. 2013-2014 (Rs. 32,16,408/-) & A.Y. 2014-2015 (Rs. 5,39,282/-). The said addition was directed to be made even when it was not based on incriminating documents found during the course of search. It further directed that, entire addition towards 'on-money' of assessee's share of Rs. 11,69,050/- [2,53,00,000- 2,29,61,900 = 23,38,100/2] be made in A.Y. 2015-2016 itself u/s. 69 of the Act and additions proposed by Assessing Officer for A.Y. 2016-2017 to 2021- 2022 qua 'on-money' were directed to be dropped as follows: A.Y. Proposed Addition 2021-22 0 2020-21....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....trued 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. (2) ....................................................................... (3) Nothing contained in this section shall apply in relation to a search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A on or after the 1st day of April, 2021. Assessment in case of search or requisition. 153A. (1) Notwithstandi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Assessing Officer for the relevant assessment year or years unless- (a) the Assessing Officer has in his possession books of account or other documents or evidence which reveal that the income, represented in the form of asset, which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more in the relevant assessment year or in aggregate in the relevant assessment years; (b) the income referred to in clause (a) or part thereof has escaped assessment for such year or years; and (c) the search under section 132 is initiated or requisition under section 132A is made on or after the 1st day of April, 2017. Explanation 1.-For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression "relevant assessment year" shall mean an assessment year preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made which falls beyond six assessment years but not later than ten assessment years from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made. Explanation 2.-For the purposes of the fourth proviso, "asset" shall include....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ATISFACTION NOTE FOR A.Y. 2015-2016 TO 2021-2022 18. That on perusal of satisfaction note dated 27.03.2023 [PB 60-64] it can be noticed that a single satisfaction note was recorded by the Assessing Officer for the A.Y. 2015-2016 to 2021-2022 against the assessee as follows: 18.1. That it can be noticed that at the time of initiation of proceedings u/s. 153C against the assessee, the Assessing Officer was not sure/aware as to what is the alleged escapement of income by the assessee and for which assessment year and she has simply initiated proceedings u/s. 153C for A.Y. 2015-2016 to 2021-2022 by recording a single satisfaction note for A.Y. 2015-2016 to 2021- 2022 by alleging that escaped income by the assessee is Rs. 27,50,000/-. 18.2. That furthermore copy of satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer of the searched person was NEVER PROVIDED to the assessee TILL DATE. 18.3. That recording of single satisfaction note u/s. 153C for different assessment years is illegal & is not permissible. Reliance is placed upon: * Hon'ble Supreme Court in ITO v. Saksham Commodities Ltd. (2024) 12 TMI 1068 [PB 211]has dismissed SLP on merits t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he power to be exercised over a ten year block, being simultaneously introduced in those provisions. The Legislature clearly intended both these provisions to form part of a cohesive scheme and to be complementary to each other. The aspects of satisfaction and of the material likely to implicate or influence were not added in Section 153A. The fact that any additions that may be ultimately made upon a culmination of assessment under Section 153A being indelibly founded on the material gathered in the course of the search is a separate issue all together. The usage of the expression "have a bearing" would necessarily lead one to conclude that the mere discovery of books, documents or assets would not justify the initiation of proceedings under that provision. Upon receipt of that material, the jurisdictional AO must additionally be satisfied that those are likely to have an impact on "the determination of the total income". "Bearing" would include something which would lend support or credence. It has also been defined to mean something which may have a practical relation or effect upon, influence or relevance. This leads us to the inevitable conclusion that the in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ading of the aforesaid Satisfaction Notes would establish that jurisdictional AOs' appear to have proceeded on the premise that the moment incriminating material is unearthed in respect of a particular AY, they would have the jurisdiction and authority to invoke Section 153C in respect of all the assessment years which could otherwise form part of the "relevant assessment year" as defined in Section 153A. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid understanding of Section 153C is clearly erroneous and unsustainable. As explained hereinabove, the discovery of material likely to implicate the assessee and impact the assessment of total income for a particular AY is not intended to set off a chain reaction or have a waterfall effect on all AYs' which could form part of the "relevant assessment year". This, more so since none of the Satisfaction Notes record any reasons of how that material is likely to materially influence the computation of income for those AYs'. The Satisfaction Notes would thus have to evidence a formation of opinion that the material is likely to be incriminating for more than a singular assessment year and thus warranting the drawl of Section 153C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on spoken of above being reached by the jurisdictional AO of the non-searched entity. Therefore, and in our opinion, abatement of the six AYs' or the "relevant assessment year" would follow the formation of that opinion and satisfaction in that respect being reached. We come to the firm conclusion that the "incriminating material" which is spoken of would have to be identified with respect to the AY to which it relates or may be likely to impact before the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Act. A material, document or asset recovered in the course of a search or on the basis of a requisition made would justify abatement of only those pending assessments or reopening of such concluded assessments to which alone it relates or is likely to have a bearing on the estimation of income. The mere existence of a power to assess or reassess the six AYs' immediately preceding the AY corresponding to the year of search or the "relevant assessment year" would not justify a sweeping or indiscriminate invocation of Section 153C. The jurisdictional AO would have to firstly be satisfied that the material received is likely to have a bearing on or impact the total....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e any substance for seeking intervention as sought for by the appellant / Revenue. In the light of the above said Apex court Decisions and the Panchanama provided herein, it is deemed appropriate to conclude that the notice provided under Section 153C is bad in law. Decided against revenue. * Hon'ble Supreme Court in PCIT v. Dev Technofab Ltd. (2025) 1 TMI 657 [PB 282]has dismissed SLP thereby approving Hon'ble Delhi High Court's judgment in Dev Technofab Ltd. v. DCIT (2024) 5 TMI 1468 [PB 283-287]wherein it was held: Validity of assessment u/s 153C - Statutory imperatives of incriminating material - HELD THAT:- Undisputedly, and as would be evident from a reading of the Satisfaction Note pertaining to the non-searched entity, namely the petitioner, the material which is alluded to pertains to Assessment Year ["AY"] 2019-20 only. Action under Section 153C however, sought to encompass AYs 2014-15 to 2020-21. Insofar as AYs other than AY 2019-20 are concerned the impugned action would clearly not sustain bearing in mind the judgment rendered by the Court in Saksham Commodities Limited [2024 (4) TMI 461 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein held jurisdictional AO woul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sdiction assumed u/s 153C - scope of 'satisfaction note' recorded by the AO - HELD THAT:- Mere drawing of a perfunctory satisfaction without meeting basic ingredients of providing some tangible & descript information and application of mind thereon has no standing in law and would not confer drastic jurisdiction of assessment u/s 153C of the Act on a person other than searched person. The jurisdiction assumed based on such lackadaisical 'satisfaction note' beset with vital infirmities cannot be countenanced in law. The objections raised on behalf of the assessee towards lack of jurisdiction based on a cryptic and non-descript satisfaction thus deserves to be sustained. While recording a consolidated 'satisfaction note' is not a bar in law per se as rightly contended on behalf of the revenue, but however, in the same vain, the documents/assets searched need to be specified against each year covered in the satisfaction note to depict application of mind and initiation of action u/s 153C of the Act qua such assessment years. AO has apparently failed to do so in the present case. As a corollary, the notice issued u/s 153C and consequent assessment order passed u/s 153....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be invoked only and only when escapement of income was alleged to be more than Rs. 50.00 lacs. The Assessing Officer has not even bothered to peruse section 153C(1) of the Act which refers to the term "relevant assessment years" as referred in section 153A(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has not even bothered to peruse 4th Proviso to section 153A(1) which permits to invoke extended period of limitation only if the escaped income/asset is more than Rs. 50.00 lacs. 19.4. That the period of limitation which could have been invoked on the basis of so-called incriminating material shall be clear from the following table: A.Y. Year Limitation as computed by Assessee Limitation as computed by AO Remarks 2023-24 1 Satisfaction Note recorded in hands of assessee & Notice u/s. 153C issued dated 27.03.2023 2022-23 2 2021-22 3 1 Search carried out premises of OM GROUP on 13.07.2020 2020-21 4 2 2019-20 5 3 2018-19 6 4 2017-18 7 5 2016-17 8 Barred by limitat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd in many cases have no concern with it at all), is dis-proportionate. For instance, if the papers are in fact assigned u/s 153-C after a period of four years, the third party assessee's prejudice is writ large as it would have to virtually preserve the records for at latest 10 years which is not the requirement in law. Such disastrous and harsh consequences cannot be attributed to Parliament. On the other hand, a plain reading of Section 153-C supports the interpretation which this Court adopts. Appeal dismissed. * Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Flowmore Ltd. 2024 (6) TMI 695[PB 297- 300]in reference of non-searched person, where-in regular search was made on 09.02.2022 and notice was issued to the assessee on 31.03.2023 while computing 10 year period, vide its order dated 27.05.2024has held: Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Time limit for notice u/s 149 - HELD THAT:- The record would reflect that pursuant to a search and seizure operation conducted in respect of the Alankit Group on 18 October 2019, the petitioner was served a notice u/s 153C on 03 March 2022. On culmination of those proceedings, the respondent proceeded to pass a final order of assessment on 23 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which undisputedly was the date from when Finance Act, 2021 came into effect. Regard must also be had to the statutory scheme for search assessments as it existed prior to Finance Act, 2021 and the indubitable fact that while in the case of the searched person, the six year or the ten year block period is liable to be computed with reference to the date of search, in the case of the non-searched entity, it has to necessarily be the date when the material is handed over to the jurisdictional AO of the "other person". All that would happen in the case of a search which takes place on or after 01 April 2021, and which warrants a reassessment action being commenced in relation to an AY prior to the first day of April, 2021, since no transmission of material would have occurred, we would necessarily have to bear in mind, the date when a decision may be taken by the jurisdictional AO to proceed against the non-searched entity in terms of the amended scheme pertaining to search assessments, and which now stands merged with the larger power of reassessment which stands comprised in Sections 147 and 148 of the Act. We find ourselves unable to construe or read the First Pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2013-14 falls beyond the ten year block period as set out under Section 153C read with Section 153A of the Act. Consequently, the impugned notices are rendered unsustainable. Thus, we allow the instant writ petitions and quash the notice referable to Section 148 - Assessee appeal allowed. * Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd.vide its order dated 03.04.2024 has held: G. COMPUTATION OF THE SIX AND TEN YEAR BLOCK IN THE PRESENT BATCH OF WRIT PETITIONS 86. In the present batch, List I pertains to writ petitions which have Satisfaction Notes recorded or Section 153C notices issued between the period 01 April 2021 to 31 March 2022. Undisputedly, the First Proviso to Section 153C, and which has been consistently recognized to also embody the commencement point for reckoning the six or the ten AYs', shifts the relevant date from the date of initiation of search or a requisition made to the date of receipt of books of account or documents and assets seized by the jurisdictional AO of the non-searched person. Consequently, the block of six or ten AYs' would have to be reckoned bearing the aforesaid date in mind. Although in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d from the mobile phone of Shri Vishal Kothari wherein it was alleged that the name of the assessee is also appearing. 20.2. That subsequently agreement to sale dated 07.06.2013(which falls within A.Y. 2014-2015) was entered into by and between the assessee & his wife Smt. Juhi Bhandari with the Builder. 20.3. That the chart of payment made to the builder during A.Y. 2013-2014, 2014- 2015 & 2015-2016 may kindly be seen herein: Date Paid by Sharad Kumar Bhandari Paid by Juhi Bhandari Total Paid % of Payment 23-01-2013 2164890 2164890 9.43% 22-03-2013 1051518 1051518 4.58% Total A.Y. 2013-14 3216408 14.01% 26-12-2013 539282 539282 2.35% 26-12-2013 539281 539281 2.35% Total A.Y. 2014-15 539282 539281 1078563 4.70% 08-07-2014 539300 539300 2.35% 08-07-2014 539300 539300 2.35% 13-11-2014 2157089 2157089 9.39% 12-03-2015 7715620 7715620 33.60% 12-03-2015 7715620 7715620 33.60% Total A.Y. 2015-16 8254920 10412....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....no proceedings have been initiated for either A.Y. 2013-2014 or A.Y. 2014-2015. 20.10. That in identical backdrop& so-called incriminating material, wherein the allegation of on-money of Rs. 2,32,50,000/- was paid in the same project, i.e., PALACIA, the revenue itself in case of other assessee's has initiated proceedings for A.Y. 2014-2015 & not for A.Y. 2015-2016.That on the same & identical set of facts, the revenue cannot pick & choose the year in which the alleged 'on-money' was paid as per its convenience. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Synod Farms and Infra Developers Private Limited v. CCIT(2025) 3 TMI 1438[PB 311-314]vide its order dated 20.03.2025 has quashed the proceedings initiated against the said assessee, being barred by limitation by holding: 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning a notice dated 31.08.2024 [impugned notice] issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] in respect of the assessment year [AY] 2014-15. The petitioner contends that the said notice is beyond the period of limitation as stipulated under Section 149(1) of the Act and therefore is liable to be set aside. 2. The impugn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....action for re-opening the assessments was initiated, that is, the date on which the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued. 12. The relevant assessment year in question (AY 2014-15) is beyond the period of ten years as contemplated under Section 153C read with Section 153A of the Act from the end of the assessment year. A tabular statement setting out the block of ten years is set out below: 13. The petition is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned notice is set aside. 20.11. That it is apparent that in case of Synod Farms and Infra Developers Private Limited proceedings were initiated by proposing addition in A.Y. 2014-2015 whereas in the hands of the assessee, the additions have been made in A.Y. 2015-2016. In light of above the impugned notice u/s 153C is illegal & deserves to be quashed & set-aside. DIRECTIONS BY DRP TO MAKE ADDITION QUA AMOUNT PAID BY CHEQUE TO BE ADDED IN A.Y. 2015-2016 IS BAD IN LAW& IS IMPERMISSIBLE 21. That in light of the fact that proceedings initiated for A.Y. 2015-2016 against the assessee itself is illegal. Further enhancement by DRP to proposed Draft Assessment Order is of no relevance an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....82/-). 21.6. That in absence of a valid satisfaction note recorded clearly justifying the material that the same are in the nature of incriminating in nature qua the assessee, the enhancement powers which the DRP has exercised u/s. 144C(8) read with section 153C of the Act is bad in law and consequently the directions to enhance the income of the assessee is void ab initio and is liable to be quashed. 21.7. That reliance in this regard is placed upon: * Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC) [PB 315-334]has held: 14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it is concluded as under: i) that in case of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A, the AO assumes the jurisdiction for block assessment under section 153A; ii) all pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated; iii) in case any incriminating material is found/unearthed, even, in case of unabated/completed assessments, the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the 'total income' taking into consideration the incriminating material unearthed during ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... addition u/s. 56(1) made by the AO based on the TP order alone cannot stand in the eyes of law. As observed that the assessment for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014- 15 were originally concluded u/s. 143(3) on 31.3.2017 and 21.12.2016 respectively. The date of the search is 23.11.2015. The dates of the TP orders for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15 are 01.02.2017 and 20.12.2018 respectively, well after the search. Therefore, any assessments under Sections 153A/153C in respect of unabated assessments must be based on incriminating materials obtained during search proceeding and not based on post-search materials, in this case TP orders passed subsequent to search materials. Further, in respect of assessments under Section 153C the same principle was reiterated in DCIT v U.K. Paints Ltd. [2023 (5) TMI 373 - SC ORDER] Even earlier held in PCIT v Vikas Telecom Ltd. [2021 (12) TMI 1386 - DELHI HIGH COURT] had held that post-search enquiries cannot be the basis of assessments under Section 153A/153C. Therefore, the reliance placed by the AO on the TP orders passed after the search cannot be countenanced. * Hon'ble ITAT, Lucknow Bench in the case of Sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1052155499 22/03/2013 1,051,518.00 Chq. No. 683923 from SBBJ A/c No. 51052155499 26/12/2013 539,282.00 RTGS / SBBJH13360303191 from SBBJ Capital Gain A/c No. 61187164085 08/07/2014 539,300.00 RTGS / SBBJR52014080700132493 from SBBJ Capital Gain A/c No. 61187164085 12/03/2015 7,715,620.00 RTGS / SBBJR52015120301861488 from SBBJ Capital Gain A/c No. 61187164085 Total 12,010,610.00 2) Juhi Bhandari Payment Date Amount Payment mode 26/12/2013 539,281.00 RTGS / SBBJH13360303235 from SBBJ Capital Gain A/c No. 61192561563 08/07/2014 539,300.00 RTGS / SBBJR52014080700132871 from SBBJ Capital Gain A/c No.61192561563 13/11/2014 2,157,089.00 From SBBJ Capital Gain A/c No. 61192561563 12/03/2015 7,715,620.00 RTGS / SBBJR52015120301861475 from SBBJ Capital Gain A/c No. 61192561563 Total 10,951,290.00 Total of 1 & 2 22,961,900.00 22.1. That during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee appellant submitted the bank statements in support of payment made to the builder. 22.2. That during the course of assessment proceedings, the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It is apparent that on perusal of the order passed by the DRP, no approach towards Resolution of dispute is visible. 22.8. That the DRP failed to even understand as to how, the assessee who is a NONRESIDENT INDIAN living outside India for more than 40 years would be able to file response that too within a short period of 1 days' time, that too, with regards to query made to it for the first time with regards to payment made by it during A.Y. 2013-2014 (Rs. 32,16,408/-), 2014-2015 (Rs. 5,39,282/-) & 2015-2016 (Rs. 82,54,920/-). The same is unthinkable and against the natural justice and deserves to be deprecated. 22.9. That the DRP has stated in its order that they had sent the email dated 27.11.2024 to the assessee with regards to afore-said query. However, assessee has checked its email and has also enquired from its Chartered Accountant and submits that no such email was received by it. It is only when the SCN dated 05.12.2024 was uploaded/sent, it came to its knowledge. 22.10. That several Hon'ble High Courts have set-aside orders passed by the Assessing Officer wherein only 1 days' time were granted to response to the Show Cause Notice by observing t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ments, nowhere the name of the assessee is said to be mentioned nor there is any evidence that assessee has actually made any cash payment towards purchase of flat in Pallacia. Thus, it is submitted that addition cannot be made on the basis of mere statement of third party which is general in nature. In this regard, it is submitted that the principle of natural justice requires that before any adverse inference based on third party statement or documents is to be taken, then either the documents which has been relied on by the authority or the persons on whose statements authority is relying, must provide the assessee with the relied documents and an opportunity of cross examination of such person before making any addition. In any case, mere bald statement, that too selfserving, without any corroborative evidence cannot be made a ground to make huge additions. In this regard, we wish to rely upon: * That Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT v. Tejua Rohitkumar Kapadia (2018 (7) TMI 590) has dismissed the SLP of the department and has upheld the view of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in PCIT v. Tejua Rohitkumar Kapadia (2017 (10) TMI 729) wherein it was observed: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sfaction to arrive at prima facie satisfaction that there is escapement of income during the assessment year under consideration. The reasons to reopen reproduced at page 5 above clearly show that the Assessing Officer has merely relied upon the report of the investigating wing whereas, it is necessary for the Assessing Officer to apply his mind on the information received from the investigating wing. But, the AO did not apply his mind to arrive at an independent satisfaction that there was escapement of income. Firstly, that the statement of Shri Madan Lal Pahuja is silent about giving any benefit to the Assessee( answer to question no 8 at page 173), and Secondly, the Assessing Officer, before initiation the proceedings of reopening, was required to examine the record like VAT Assessment completed in the case of Shri Madan Lal Pahuja on 01.03.2012, whereby the VAT Department accepted the sales made by Shri Madan Lal Pahuja to the Assessee therein. Further, in the assessment under VAT for the Assessee, the VAT Department has accepted the purchases made by the Assessee from Shri Madan Lal Pahuja. Once the sale by Shri Madan Lal Pahuja made to the Assessee and purchases made by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this, the Assessing Officer in the reasons to reopen, at page above had mentioned as under:- "Further, on doing the independent verification of the assessment record of the assessee company for AY 2010-11, it was noticed that the amount of purchases made by the assessee company from M/s Shree Nath Ispat Udyog, Mandi Gobindgarh amounting to Rs. 2.06 crores and from M/s Shiv Bhole Kirpa Traders, Ludhiana amounting to Rs. 1.05 crores matched with the information received from the office of ADIT (Inv.), Ludhiana." 22. In our opinion, once the information was available in the assessment record of the Assessee company for the assessment year 2010-11, which was subject matter of scrutiny assessment and on the basis of this information, the assessment was completed and the additions were made. In our opinion, the same information was admitted to be correct by the Assessing Officer in the reasons to reopen as it is matching with the information received from the Investigation wing. In our considered opinion, once the Assessing Officer formed an opinion on the information available on record and framed the assessment, then the Assessing Officer cannot be permitted to chang....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... made the additions/reopening of assessment were made by the Assessing Officer solely on the basis of the statement recorded by the investigating wing of Shri Madan Lal Pahuja on 07.01.2015. The recording of the statement was the foundation fact as whole case of the Assessing Officer revolves around that statement. The said statement recorded by the investigating wing is not sacrosanct and was required to be proved on the anvil of cross-examination during the assessment proceedings. The Assessee, after receiving the copy of the statement on 08.12.2017 had requested the Assessing Officer to permit the Assessee to cross-examine Shri Madan Lal Pahuja. However, the notice sent through the Inspector for recording the statement of Shri Madan Lal Pahuja had not yielded any result as he failed to turned up for examination and cross-examination during the re-assessment proceedings. In our opinion, the statement recorded by the investigating wing cannot form the basis of making the addition unless it is proved in accordance with law in the assessment proceedings. It was the duty of revenue to produce the witness namely Shri Madan Lal Pahuja as the revenue was relying upon his statement. In o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 bills to the Assessing Officer and further the Assessee had submitted that the goods were purchased from these parties and has provided the registration certificate in respect of the other 26 vehicles. The total amount of the seven bills for which the AO had suspicion was for Rs. 53,72,955/- only. Undoubtedly the sale of the Assessee had not been doubted by the department. Once the sales of the Assessee have not been doubted and only a fraction of the purchase of Rs. 53,72,955/- was doubted then the entire purchase cannot be added in the income of the Assessee. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the matter of Bholanath Polyfab [355 ITR 290],even the GP on the amount of sale of Rs. 53,72,955/- cannot be added in the hands of the Assessee as the sales made by Shri Madan Lal Pahuja and others were accepted by the department in the Assessment Order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. Once the sales have been accepted in the hands of the seller, the same cannot be doubted in the hands of the purchaser. 26. Further, as mentioned hereinabove, the Assessee has requested for cross-examination of Shri Madan Lal Pahuja and the same was not provide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... duly reflected in the books of account. The payments have been made by account payee cheque which are duly reflected in the bank statement of the assessee. There is no evidence to show that the assessee has received cash book from the suppliers. The additions have been made merely on the report of the Sales tax Department but at the same time it cannot be said that purchases are bogus. We, therefore, set aside the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition - Decided in favour of assessee. * Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishancand Chellaram v. CIT [125 ITR 713] has held that evidence which is not shown to the assessee cannot be admitted. The opportunity to controvert should be given to the assessee. * Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2019 (8) TMI 1072) has held: "We have perused the review petition and find that the tax effect in this case is above Rs. 1 crore, that is, Rs. 6,59,27,298/-. Ordinarily, therefore, we would have recalled our order dated 17th September, 2018, since the order was passed only on the basis that the tax effect in this case is less than Rs. 1 crore. Howe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....witnesses. The Tribunal has simply stated that cross-examination of the said dealers could not have brought out any material which would not be in possession of the appellant themselves to explain as to why their ex-factory prices remain static. It was not for the Tribunal to have guesswork as to for what purposes the appellant wanted to cross-examine those dealers and what extraction the appellant wanted from them. Whether the goods were, in fact, sold to the said dealers/witnesses at the price which is mentioned in the price-list itself could be the subject matter of cross-examination. Therefore, it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject matter of the cross-examination and make the remarks as mentioned above. If the testimony of these two witnesses is discredited, there was no material with the Department on the basis of which it could justify its action, as the statement of the aforesaid two witnesses was the only basis of issuing the Show-Cause Notice. - Order set aside - Decided in favor of assessee. 23.2. That the Assessing Officer / DRP in their respective orders have referred to one image having "Details as on 17.04.201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egards the addition of income made by the Assessing Officer based on loose sheets found in the house of a third party. We find that the Revenue has not established the said loose sheets to be considered as evidence in law by producing corroborative evidence supported by judgments and findings. Further, since the statement made by Shri K. Rajendran under Section 132 of the IT Act is later retracted by him by filing an affidavit, the statement given by him does not hold any evidentiary value. The notice issued under Section 153C of the IT Act in respect of the Assessment year 2018-19 is not applicable, which is also supported by various judgments of the High Court. Further, the notice as regards the Assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 are also not applicable, as the total addition of income were made on the basis of loose sheets. Further, the panchanama or mahazar of all the loose sheets said to have been seized from the house of Shri Rajendran, are now unavailable and the learned counsel for the Revenue has no answer for the same. On these premise, the assessment order made for the Assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 requires to be quashed. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5) 144C(13) 05 23.01.2025 Assessment Order passed by Assessing Officer u/s. 153C r.w.s. 153C r.w.s. 144C(13) 24.1. That on perusal of section 153B of the Act, it can be noticed that there is no period of exclusion provided therein towards the proceedings pending before DRP u/s. 144C of the Act. 24.2. That for ready reference section 144C(4) & 144C(13) of the Act are being reproduced hereinbelow: (4) The Assessing Officer shall, notwithstanding anything contained in section 153 or section 153B, pass the assessment order under subsection (3) within one month from the end of the month in which,- (a) the acceptance is received; or (b) the period of filing of objections under sub-section (2) expires. (13) Upon receipt of the directions issued under sub-section (5), the Assessing Officer shall, in conformity with the directions, complete, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 153 or section 153B, the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee, within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received. 24.3. That section 144C(4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer before the DRP. Therefore, in ordinary course, the extended time limit for completion of the assessment should be available to the Assessing Officer as per section 144C r.w.s. 153C of the I.T. Act, 1961. But, the argument of the learned Counsel for the assessee is that as per section 153(4) of the Act, the extended period of 12 months for completion of assessment is available only where a reference under sub section (1) of section 92CA is made during the course of the assessment or re-assessment, but not in a case where there is no reference to the TPO. We find force in the argument of the learned Counsel for the assessee for the simple reason that, as per section 153(2), the time limit for completion of assessment or re-assessment shall be 12 months from the end of the financial year in which notice u/s 148 was served. However, sub-section (4) of section 153 extends the said time limit by another 12 months notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), (1A), (2), (3) and (3A) where a reference u/s 92CA)(1) is made during the assessment proceedings to the TPO. In other words, except the cases of the reference to the TPO, exte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere cannot be any addition of unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee as these falls under article 22 of Indo-UAE DTAA which makes such income taxable in the country of residence i.e. UAE unless these investments are proved to be made out of income generated in India. 24. We find some merit in the above argument of the learned Counsel for the assessee. A perusal of the record shows that the notice u/s 148 was issued on 24.2.2021, a fact not disputed by the Revenue. There is no reference made to the TPO for making any adjustment of arm's length price of the international taxation. We find the provisions of section 153(2) read as under: "153. Time limit for completion of assessment, reassessment and re-computation. (1) No order of assessment shall be made under section 143 or section 144 at any time after the expiry of twenty-one months from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable: Provided that in respect of an order of assessment relating to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 2018, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect, as if for the words "twenty-one months", the words "eight....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nces and also by following the decision of the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Farooq Ali vs. Income Tax Officer (Supra), we are of the considered view that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 r.w.s. 144C(13) dated 12.01.2023 is barred by limitation and thus we quash the re-assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. * Hon'ble ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in Maliha Syeda v. ITO (2025) 2 TMI 937vide its order dated 20.02.2025 [PB 374-379] has held: Validity of reassessment order as barred by limitation - arguments advanced by the assessee that the since the extended time limit of 12 months is not available in the case of Non-Resident as per sec.153(4), AO ought to have complete the assessment as per the provisions of sec.153(2) which is one year from the end of the financial year in which notice u/sec.148 was served - HELD THAT:-Since in the case of the assessee who is a Non-Resident during the impugned A.Ys. 2013-2014 and 2014- 2015, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment on 25.05.2022 beyond the period of one year from the end of the financial year in which notice issued u/sec.148 dated 29.03.2021, therefore, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 153(4) of the Act, the extended period of 12 months for completion of assessment is available only where a reference under sub section (1) of section 92CA is made during the course of the assessment or re-assessment, but not in a case where there is no reference to the TPO. We find force in the argument of the learned Counsel for the assessee for the simple reason that, as per section 153(2), the time limit for completion of assessment or reassessment shall be 12 months from the end of the financial year in which notice u/s 148 was served. 9. However, sub-section (4)of section 153 extends the said time limit by another 12 months notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),(1A),(2),(3) and (3A) where a reference u/s. 92CA(1) is made during the assessment proceedings to the TPO. In other words, except the cases of the reference to the TPO, extended time limit of 12 months for completion of assessment is not available even in a case of Non-Resident assessment, even though the said assessment proceedings is covered u/s 144C of the Act. Since the extended time limit of 12 months is not available in the case of Non-Resident as per section 153(4) of the Act, in our ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....014-2015 u/s. 148A(d) of the Act in the case of Synod Farms and Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. 5. Copy of notice dated 31.08.2024 issued by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Delhi for A.Y. 2014-2015 u/s. 148 of the Act in the case of Synod Farms and Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. The afore-said documents have been received by the assessee subsequent to passage of assessment order dated 24.01.2025 in assessee's case and in light of judgment by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Synod Farms and Infra Developers Private Limited v. CCIT (2025) 3 TMI 1438 dated 20.03.2025 [PB 311-314]. That 1 days' time was granted by DRP to submit the source of payment made to the Builder by the assessee. In such short duration, the requisite details that too for a transaction which happened 10 years ago could not be submitted and hence the assessee applicant wishes to place on record: 6. Copy of registered Sale Deed dated 29.01.2013 whereby immovable property was jointly sold by the assessee and wherefrom payment was made by the assessee to the Builder. The same was produced & explained to the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment proceedings b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s * Interest Certificates * Agreement to sale dated 07.06.2013 entered by the assessee & Smt. Juhi Bhandari with M/s. OM Metal Consortium Pvt. Ltd. * Payment details to the builder 65-68 69-71 73-74 75-78 79-114 115 YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES 14 12.03.2024 Disposal order to objections raised by the assessee passed by the Assessing Officer 116-120 YES YES 15 14.03.2024 Reply filed by the assessee 121-123 YES YES 16 19.03.2024 Show cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer for A.Y. 20152016 124-129 YES YES 17 20.03.2024 Reply filed by the assessee 130-131 YES YES 18 30.03.2024 Draft Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 144C(1) 132-154 YES YES 19 31.03.2024 Reply to Draft Assessment Order filed by the assessee 155-159 YES YES 20 26.04.2024 Application filed before Dispute Resolution Panel by the assessee 160-171 YES YES 21 05.12.2024 Enhancement notice issued by DRP u/s. 144C(8) 172-173 YES YES 22 06.12.2024 Adjournment application ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....#39;ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC) 315-334 NA NA 38 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT v. U.K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 441 (SC) 335 NA NA 39 Hon'ble ITAT, Chennai Bench in the case of ACIT v. RKM Power Pvt. Ltd. (2024) 12 TMI 242 336-359 NA NA INDEX, SEQUENCE OF EVENTS & COMPILATION-II Sno. Date Particulars Page Before DRP Before AO 40 02.05.2025 Additional Written Submission before Hon'ble ITAT 360-366 NA NA ASSESSMENT ORDER IS BARRED BY LIMIATION U/S. 153C R.W.S. 144C 41 Hon'ble ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in Syed Gulam Mohiuddin v. ITO (2024) 6 TMI 269 367-373 NA NA 42 Hon'ble ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in Maliha Syeda v. ITO (2025) 2 TMI 937 374-379 NA NA 05 Hon'ble ITAT, Chennai Bench in Ganesan Kannan v. ITO (ITA: 698/Chny/2024 380-399 NA NA INDEX-III SNo. Particulars Page 44. Misc. Application for taking additional documents on record. 400 45. Copy of satisf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plications seeking to take additional documents on record, the same is allowed. Ld. D/R has also not filed objection towards the same. 14. Ground No. 1, 3 & 4 is decided as hereunder: A search & seizure action u/s. 132 of the Act was carried out at the premises of M/s. OM Kothari Group on 13.07.2020. During the course of search incriminating documents in the nature of one image having "Details as on 17.04.2013" of flats sold in PALLACIA project was found from the mobile phone of Shri Vishal Kothari wherein name of the assessee appearing @ Sno. 20. As per satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer, the searched person has accepted receipt of on-money in sale of flats and the image reflects bifurcation of cheque amount and on-money amount. This image is further corroborative with WhatsApp chats found from the mobile phone during the course of search & statements of Directors & other key persons of OM Kothari Group were recorded. The image also reflects that the assessee alongwith his wife Juhi Bhandari has purchased a residential flat for total sale consideration of Rs. 2,53,00,000/- and out of which Rs. 55,00,000/- was paid in cash as 'on-money'. Since, assessee's share ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isfaction note has been recorded by the ld. AO for A.Y. 2015- 2016 to 2021-2022 whereas issuance of notice u/s. 153C is not automatic or mechanical. He further submitted that it can be issued to the 'other person' only for those years which have a bearing over escaped income and that too on the basis of incriminating material found. He further submitted, that the fact that a single satisfaction note was recorded for A.Y. 2015-2016 to 2021-2022 reflects that the ld. Assessing Officer himself is not sure that the alleged escaped income actually reflects to which assessment year, it is like a fishing & roving enquiry. He further submitted, that there is NO material on record whatsoever suggesting receipt of on-money by the builder during A.Y. 2015-2016 to 2021-2022 and it is all guess-work. He further submitted, that each year is an independent year and the concept of block period has been replaced after introduction of section 153A & 153C of the Act. Reliance in support was placed upon judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Saksham Commodities Ltd. (Supra) & Dev Technofab Ltd. (Supra) & Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DCIT v. Sunil Kumar Sharma (Supra). All ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al income of such other person". We in this regard bear in mind the well settled distinction which the law recognizes between the existence of power and the exercise thereof. Section 153C enables and empowers the jurisdictional AO to assess or reassess the six AYs' or the "relevant assessment year". The Act thus sanctions and confers an authority upon the AO to exercise the power placed in its hands for up to a maximum of ten AYs'. Despite the conferral of that power, the question which would remain is whether the facts and circumstances of a particular case warrant or justify the invocation of that power. It is the aforesaid aspect which bids us to reiterate the distinction between the existence and exercise of power. 50. What we seek to emphasise is that merely because Section 153C confers jurisdiction upon the AO to commence an exercise of assessment or reassessment for the block of years which are mentioned in that provision, the same alone would not be sufficient to justify steps in that direction being taken, unless the incriminating material so found is likely to have an impact on the total income of a particular AY forming part of the six AYs' immediately preceding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecision which came to be reiterated by our Court in Index Securities. 54. In any case, Abhisar Buildwell, in our considered opinion, is a decision which conclusively lays to rest any doubt that could have been possibly harboured. The Supreme Court in unequivocal terms held that absent incriminating material, the AO would not be justified in seeking to assess or reassess completed assessments. Though the aforesaid observations were rendered in the context of completed assessments, the same position would prevail when it comes to assessments which abate pursuant to the issuance of a notice under Section 153C. Here too, the AO would have to firstly identify the AYs' to which the material gathered in the course of the search may relate and consequently it would only be those assessments which would face the spectre of abatement. The additions here too would have to be based on material that may have been unearthed in the course of the search or on the basis of material requisitioned. The statute thus creates a persistent and enduring connect between the material discovered and the assessment that may be ultimately made. The provision while speaking of AYs' falling within the b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncome. This aspect was again emphasised in para 38 of RRJ Securities with the Court laying stress on the existence of material that may be reflective of undisclosed income being of vital importance. All the aforenoted judgments thus reinforce the requirement of incriminating material having an ineradicable link to the estimation of income for a particular AY. 57. It becomes pertinent to note that both Sections 153A and 153C require the assessee upon being placed on notice to furnish ROIs' for the six AYs' or the "relevant assessment year". All that the two provisions mandate is that notwithstanding the submission of those ROIs', the AO would frame one assessment order in respect of each of the years which were made subject matter of the notice and which would deal with both disclosed and undisclosed income. This too reinforces our view that Section 153C would apply only to such AYs' where the jurisdictional AO is satisfied and has incriminating material for those AYs' and which may be concerned with disclosed and undisclosed income. 58. The aforesaid position stands further fortified from a reading of the First Proviso to Section 153A and which speaks of the power....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ning to FY 2009-10 [and thus relating to AY 2010-11], the AO proceeded to seek approval for initiating action under Section 153C in respect of AYs' 2010-11 up to 2020-21. 61. A reading of the aforesaid Satisfaction Notes would establish that jurisdictional AOs' appear to have proceeded on the premise that the moment incriminating material is unearthed in respect of a particular AY, they would have the jurisdiction and authority to invoke Section 153C in respect of all the assessment years which could otherwise form part of the "relevant assessment year" as defined in Section 153A. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid understanding of Section 153C is clearly erroneous and unsustainable. As explained hereinabove, the discovery of material likely to implicate the assessee and impact the assessment of total income for a particular AY is not intended to set off a chain reaction or have a waterfall effect on all AYs' which could form part of the "relevant assessment year". This, more so since none of the Satisfaction Notes record any reasons of how that material is likely to materially influence the computation of income for those AYs'. 62. Hypothetically speaking, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m the reasons assigned in the satisfaction note. In the instant case a single satisfaction note was recorded for A.Y. 2015-2016 to 2021-2022. From perusal of excel sheet containing details as on 17.04.2013, how, the ld. Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that escaped income relates to A.Y. 2015-2016 to 2021-2022 cannot be deciphered. The jurisdiction assumed based on such 'satisfaction note' beset with vital infirmities cannot be countenanced in law. The documents/assets searched need to be specified against each year covered in the satisfaction note to depict application of mind and initiation of action u/s 153C of the Act qua such assessment years. Ld. AO has failed to do so in the present case. The objections raised by the ld. A/R towards lack of jurisdiction based on a cryptic and non-descript satisfaction note thus deserves to be accepted. 17.1. We have also perused 4th proviso to section 153A(1) alongwith Explanation 1 to section 153A(1) r.w.s. 153C of the Act. Assessing Officer can invoke extended period of limitation beyond the 6th year only under the condition that the alleged escaped income is more than Rs. 50.00 lacs. Admittedly total alleged escaped income qua ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ference to the date of search, however, in the case of the other person, the six year or the ten-year block period is to be computed with reference to the date when the incriminating material is handed over to the jurisdictional AO of the "other person" & on the basis whereof the satisfaction note is recorded by him. Accordingly, the period of limitation for 6 years in the instant case would be computed in the instant case as hereunder: A.Y. Year Particulars Remarks 2023-24 1 Satisfaction Note dated 27.03.2023 recorded by the AO qua the assessee & notice u/s. 153C issued dated 27.03.2023. Within limitation irrespective of allegation of escaped income, however, restricted to incriminating material 2022-23 2 2021-22 3 Search carried out premises of OM GROUP on 13.07.2020 2020-21 4 2019-20 5 2018-19 6 2017-18 7 2016-17 8 Barred by limitation, since admittedly alleged escaped income is less than Rs. 50.00 lacs. 2015-16 9 17.3. As a corollary, the notice issued u/s 153C and consequential assessment order passed u/s 153C for A.Y. 2015-2016....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....750] and out of same purchase consideration of Rs. 3000 per sq. feet were given in cash as 'On money' as ascertained from whatsapp images (the image which was found from the mobile of Shri Vishal Kothari). 5.2 Accordingly, it can be inferred from the seized material that cash of Rs. 2,32,50,000/- (was given as on-money 7750*3000) in F.Y. 2013-14, as the concerned agreement was signed by the assessee with the developer on 30.04.2013. He further submitted that subsequently an order u/s. 148A(d) dated 31.08.2024 was passed in the case of M/s. Synod Farm and Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. by the ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Delhi for A.Y. 2014-2015 alleging therein that onmoney paid by it relates to the date when agreement to sale was executed, i.e., during A.Y. 2014-2015. This order was passed after seeking sanction of ld. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax-Central, Delhi. He further submitted that this shows that the department itself is taking contradictory stand in the hands of different assessee's on the very same material. In the case of the assessee, the ld. Assessing Officer vide Draft Assessment Order has applied % complet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat on the basis of similar incriminating material, different stands have been adopted by different Assessing Officers with regards to the payment of on-money relates to which year. No material is forthcoming from the builder reflecting the date of receipt of on-money. No opportunity of cross examination has been granted to the assessee, which vitiates entire assessment proceedings as held by Hon'ble jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Sunita Dhadda [2018] 406 ITR 220 (Raj). As a corollary, there is no basis to make allege that the incriminating material has any bearing in relation to A.Y. 2015-2016 and the addition of Rs. 11,69,050/- made by the ld. Assessing Officer deserves to be deleted. Ground No. 3 of the assessee is thus allowed. 19. In support of Ground No. 4 the the ld. A/R has submitted, that the DRP gave only 1 days' time to the assessee appellant to respond to the source of official amount paid by the appellant to the builder. He submitted that enhancement notice was issued by DRP on 05.12.2024 to be responded by 06.12.2024. Enhancement notice was issued alleging that source of amount paid by the assessee to the builder by cheque has not been explained. Tim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rch. Thus, though DRP has power to enhance, however, such powers can be exercised within the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, i.e., it has to be restricted to incriminating documents found during the course of search. Enhancement has been proposed by the DRP on the ground that source of payment made by the assessee to the builder as per agreement to sale has not been explained, however, the said document is not incriminating material, thus we hold that the directions so issued by the DRP u/s. 144C(8) is bad in law. We have further perused the bank statements & registered sale deed executed by the assessee. The source of funds paid to the builder is the sale proceeds received by the assessee on sale of immovable property and the amount kept in the Capital Gains Account Scheme wherefrom the amount has been paid to the builder. The source is fully explainable. As a corollary, there is no basis to allege that the source of Rs. 1,20,10,610/- paid by the assessee to the builder is not explained and accordingly the addition so made deserves to be deleted. Ground No. 4 of the assessee is thus allowed. 20. Ground No. 2: In support of Ground No. 2 the the ld. A/R has sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oubted, as this is having details of cash payments. These evidences clearly established that significant part of the total consideration is being paid in cash. Thus, it can be concluded that the assessee paid Rs 15,17,450/- in cash over and above the transaction made through banking channel. Therefore, the cash payment of Rs 15,17,450/- is being treated as Is tovad oc nor the provision of Document 3 S.NO NAME OF PERSON UNIT NO. AREA SQ FT 1 ASHAY KUMAR SARDA/ANUBRAV SARDA/PRENE DEVISAINDA 5 2204 3350 11050 110.50 ZMI HASHISH GUPTAJABHISHEK GUPTA D-42 39r 3800 7 208.20 . 3 19 ASHISH GUPTA/ABHISHEK GUPTA D-52 5h0 5550 206-20 4 BENARA UDYOG LTD. 155 H-81 31m 3100 155 155 5 DR. RAJESH BHOJWANI 2006 6-12 E-82 70-88 70 88 6 OM PRAKASH ARORA 117 1-92 3:0 3850 115.50 117-750 = 15.00 (7020 300) 7 PRAVEEN DHANRAJ JAIN 120 77 C-72 4 70 3850 115.5 HTP GA (90 0 8 PUSHPA DEVI GURNANI/VISHNU KUMAR GURNANI C-61 293:00 9 = 9 013 +11-50] RENU GURNANI/MOHANDAS GURNANI C-52 SÅ‚o 5550 L 100 10 X SAKET GOYAL F-51 2200 66 29-116-1+10898 11 SURENDRA MANN/KAMAL MANN 93 H-41 3204 3100 93 (Newyork) 12 SYNOD FARM AND INFRA DEVELOPERS [P) LTD. 23....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he actual consideration of this flat was Rs. 12000/- per sq. ft. out of which Rs.8000/- was paid through cheque and Rs. 4000/- was paid in cash. Like-wise each customer was charged with different cheque and cash rate but on an average the total sale consideration of the flat comes out to Rs. 12000/- per square feet. Further, it is pertinent to mention here that the total value of flat with the cheque component come close to the total sale consideration mentioned in the above discussed excel sheet, which is recorded in the books of accounts by the seller company. 5. As discussed above, the assessee i.e. Shri Sharad Kumar Bhandari along with Smt. Juhi Bhandari booked a flat having area of 2200 Sq. Ft. Thus the total On-Money payment comes to Rs. 55,00,000/- ( 2200 x 2500). Thus total amount of Rs. 55,00,000/- On-Money paid by the assessee along with Smt. Juhi Bhandari. Therefore, the same is equally assessed in the hand of both the persons. Accordingly On-money payment of Rs.27,50,000/- (5500000/2) is required to be assessed in the hand of the assessee as un-explained investment for purchase of the said property. 5. In view of the facts stated above, it is imperative that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....¥€ आयॠ65 वरà¥à¤· पà¥à¤¤à¥à¤° सà¥à¤µ. शà¥à¤°à¥€ रणजीत सिंड़, à¤à¤£à¥à¤¡à¤¾à¤°à¥€ जाति चषà¥à¤ म जवडॠचंजी For Deopaangan Reatties Pvt. Li Amit chauduna frodo HIGH INDIA NON JUDICIAL हजार रà¥à¤ªà¤¯à¥‡ 10000 10000 TEN THOUSAND RUPEES INDI 2. समसे 1571-636 राजसà¥à¤¥à¤¾à¤¨ IAN- ज सà¥à¤¥à¤¾à¤¨ उप चंसहायक नषà¥à¤Ÿ (जिनà¥à¤¦ गळातों à¤à¥Œ मगं को शाद कà¥à¤šà¤¾ इसमानचितà¥à¤° राईसà¥à¤¤ होलà¥à¤¡à¤° संधà¥à¤¯à¤¾- 3 वें 4 के मà¥à¤•à¤¦à¥à¤®à....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....¤¾à¤°à¥à¤—, सी-सà¥à¤•à¥€à¤®, जयपà¥à¤° (राजसà¥à¤¥à¤¾à¤¨) बहैसियत सà¥à¤µà¤¯à¤‚ जिनà¥à¤¹à¥‡à¤‚ इस विलेख में विकà¥à¤°à¥‡à¤¤à¤¾. टाईटल होलà¥à¤¡à¤° पà¥à¤°à¤¥à¤®à¤ªà¤•à¥à¤· संखà¥à¤¯à¤¾-2 के नाम से समà¥à¤¬à¥‹à¤§à¤¿à¤¤ किया गया है। (3) रविनà¥à¤¦à¥à¤° सिंह à¤à¤£à¥à¤¡à¤¾à¤°à¥€ आयॠ57 वरà¥à¤· पà¥à¤¤à¥à¤° सà¥à¤µ. शà¥à¤°à¥€. रंगजीत सिंह à¤à¤£à¥à¤¡à¤¾à¤°à¥€ जाति जैन निवासी पà¥à¤²à¤¾à¤....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....न निवासी पà¥à¤²à¤¾à¤Ÿ सं. के-114/115, जनपथ, शà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤® Lubaffon -Fl besgangan Realtors Pvt. Lud. Amit chaudes अनà¥à¤¯à¤• ज़रूर 15 पणतिंया à¤à¥Œà¤¤à¤¿à¤• कबà¥à¤œà¥‡ -- à¤à¤µà¤‚ टाईटल के निरीकà¥à¤·à¤£ à¤à¤µà¤‚ सतà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤ªà¤¨ उपरानà¥à¤¤, उससे संतà¥à¤·à¥à¤Ÿ होने पर खरीद किया जाना सà¥à¤µà¥€à¤•à¤¾à¤° किया है इस पà¥à¤°à¤•à¤¾à¤° उकà¥à¤¤à¤¤à¥‡ सिटीजन होलà¥à¤¡à¤° सà¥à¤°à¥‡à¤¨à¥à¤¦à¥à¤° सिंह à¤à¤£à¥à¤....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....¥ अपनी सà¥à¤µà¤¸à¥à¤¥ इनà¥à¤¦à¥à¤°à¤¿à¤¯ तथा सà¥à¤¥à¤¿à¤° बà¥à¤¦à¥à¤§à¤¿ की. अवसà¥à¤¥à¤¾ में बिना किसी दबाव, वहकाव न आगà¥à¤°à¤¹ के कà¥à¤² मà¥à¤¬à¤²à¤¿à¤— 8,50,00,000/- रूपये आंकà¥à¤·à¥à¤°à¥‡- आठकरोड़ पचास लाख रूपये की à¤à¤µà¤œ में दà¥à¤µà¤¿à¤¤à¥€à¤¯à¤ªà¤•à¥à¤· मैसरà¥à¤¸ दीपांगन रियलटरà¥à¤¸ पà¥à¤°à¤¾.लि. (DEEPAANGAN_ REALTORS PRIVATR LTD.) के हित में कतई बेचान कर दी ह....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....¤‚ 2,12,50,000/ अंकà¥à¤° डी करà¥à¤°à¥‡à¤¡ 'छ ताछ- à¤à¤¬à¤¾à¤¸ इनार कपढ़ें पासà¥à¤Ÿà¤°à¤•à¤°à¥à¤£ म मूकà¥à¤· सं.3 शà¥à¤°à¥€ शरद कà¥à¤®à¤¾à¤°- à¤à¥à¤£à¥à¤¡à¤¾à¤°à¥€ क सà¤à¤¾ 117605 . 30.07.2013 बैंक ने 2,12,50,000/- à¤à¤®.डी.à¤à¤«.डी. बैंक, शाखा- अगरà¥à¤° मारà¥à¤—, दà¥à¤µà¤¿à¤¤à¥€à¤¯à¤ªà¤•à¥à¤· गढ़रे डो कफेर नफ़ शाळ पचम इगर कपरमें है. Rupalkwthat Cor Deepeangan Resitors Pvt. Lid 16 पà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤ªà¥à¤¤à¤•à¤°à¥à¤¤à¤¾ - प....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....¹à¤¾à¤œà¤¾ . पà¥à¤°à¤¤à¤¿à¤«à¤² की राशि सहित किसी à¤à¥€ मद पेंटे पà¥à¤°à¤¥à¤®à¤‚पकà¥à¤· को दà¥à¤µà¤¿à¤¤à¥€à¤¯à¤ªà¤•à¥à¤· से कà¥à¤› à¤à¥€ लेना बाकी नहीं, रहा है" और ना ही à¤à¤µà¤¿à¤·à¥à¤¯ में होगा लिहाजा पà¥à¤°à¤¤à¤¿à¤«à¤² की राशि को लेकर पà¥à¤°à¤¥à¤®à¤‚पकà¥à¤· व उसके वारिसान दà¥à¤µà¤¾à¤°à¤¾ की जाने वाली आपचि पूरी तरह से अमानà¥à¤¯ व à¤....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....¤°à¤¿à¤¸à¤¾à¤¨ को किसी पà¥à¤°à¤•à¤¾à¤° की आपतà¥à¤¤à¤¿, à¤à¤¤à¤°à¤¾à¤œà¤¼ नहीं है और ना ही à¤à¤µà¤¿à¤·à¥à¤¯ में होगी। 13. यह कि दà¥à¤µà¤¿à¤¤à¥€à¤¯à¤ªà¤•à¥à¤· उकà¥à¤¤ वरà¥à¤£à¤¿à¤¤ अचल समà¥à¤ªà¤¤à¥à¤¤à¤¿ पैरा संखà¥à¤¯à¤¾-1 व उसकी तालिका में वरà¥à¤£à¤¿à¤¤ को कारà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤²à¤¯ : जयपà¥à¤° विकास पà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤§à¤¿à¤•à¤°à¤£, नगर निगम, जयपà¥à¤°, जलदाय विà¤à¤¾à¤—, विदà¥à¤¯à¥à¤¤ विà¤à....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....तरित करें तमाम मालिकाना अधिकार दà¥à¤µà¤¿à¤¤à¥€à¤¯à¤ªà¤•à¥à¤· को पà¥à¤°à¤¥à¤®à¤ªà¤•à¥à¤· के सà¥à¤¥à¤¾à¤¨ पर पà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤ªà¥à¤¤ हो Document 7 -: विकà¥à¤°à¤¯ की गई समà¥à¤ªà¤¤à¥à¤¤à¤¿ का विवरण जो कि गà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤® खटवाड़ा तहसील सांगानेर जिला जयपà¥à¤° में. गà¥à¤°à¥à¤ª हाउसिंग हेतॠ• अनà¥à¤®à¥‹à¤¦à¤¿à¤¤ / रूपानà¥à¤¤à¤°à¤¿à¤¤ खसरा नं. 115/1172, 115/1173, 116, 117/2, 118/2 व 218/11311: à....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....‚.1 मय अंगूठा निशानी हसà¥à¤¤à¤¾à¤•à¥à¤·à¤°, पà¥à¤°à¤¥à¤®à¤ªà¤•à¥à¤· सं.2 मय अंगूठा निशानी (सà¥à¤°à¥‡à¤¨à¥à¤¦à¥à¤° सिंह - à¤à¤£à¥à¤¡à¤¾à¤°à¥€) निके आगर विà¤à¤¾à¤— दà¥à¤µà¤¾à¤°à¤¾ आवंटित सà¤à¥€ ADIPROSSOK (शà¥à¤°à¥€à¤®à¤¤à¥€ शारदा à¤à¤£à¥à¤¡à¤¾à¤°à¥€) जिनके आयकर विà¤à¤¾à¤— दà¥à¤µà¤¾à¤°à¤¾ मारà¥à¤¬à¤‚टित सà¥à¤¥à¤¾à¤¯à¥€ 4 deru AAPPIS132GB- हसà¥à¤¤à¤¾à¤•à¥à¤·à¤° पà¥à¤°à¤¥à¤®à¤ªà¤•à¥à¤· सं.3 मय अंगूठा- à....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ंदवाड़) Director उकà¥à¤¤ दà¥à¤µà¤¿à¤¤à¥€à¤¯à¤ªà¤•à¥à¤· कमà¥à¤ªà¤¨à¥€ के बोरà¥à¤¡ ऑफ डायरेकà¥à¤Ÿà¤°à¥à¤¸ की दिनांक 29 ... ] .: 213 को आमागित मिटिंग में पà¥à¤°à¤¸à¥à¤¤à¤¾à¤µ पारित कर दà¥à¤µà¤¿à¤¤à¥€à¤¯à¤ªà¤•à¥à¤· कमà¥à¤ªà¤¨à¥‹à¤‚, के नाम से उकà¥à¤¤ समà¥à¤ªà¤¤à¤¿ के विकà¥à¤°à¤¯ पतà¥à¤° के निषà¥à¤ªà¤¾à¤¦à¤¨ व पंजीयन की कारà¥à¤¯à¤µà¤¾à¤¹à¥€ हेतॠउकà¥à¤¤ दितोयपृषà¥à¤ ....