TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 985
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lates to the same assessment year we considered to dispose together. 3. Before moving towards the facts of the case, we would like to reiterate the grounds upon which revenue has assailed the appeal in ITA No. 94/JPR/2025:- "i) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Id.CIT(A) has erred in deleting all the additions made by A.O on technical ground only without giving any finding on the merits of additions? ii) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding notice u/s 153C invalid without appreciating that there is specific reference to incriminating seized material in the satisfaction note recorded by A.O for issue of notice u/s 153C ? iii) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting all the additions made by A.O without appreciating that the additions made by A.O are based on findings of search/post search proceedings ? iv) The appellant craves leave or reserves right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before on during the hearing of this appeal." 4. On the other hand, the assessee has filed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5. The fact as culled out from the records is that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act and/or survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried out by the Income Tax Department in the "Oswal Group" of Jaipur on 06.09.2018. During the Search, residential premises of Shri Surya Singhal 278, Dada Badi Extn, Kota was also covered u/s 132 of the Act on 06.09.2018. In that action certain incriminating documents were found & seized from the premises of Residence of Shri Surya Singhal belonging to the assessee Late Shri Gopal Lalji Goswami, legal heir of Late Shri Gopal Lalji Goswami is Smt. Kamalaprabha i.e. the assessee. Consequent to the search jurisdiction over the assessee was assigned to ACIT, Circle-2, Kota vide order u/s 127 of the Act, dated 03.03.2022 issued by office of the PCIT, Udaipur. Necessary satisfaction note was drawn up by ACIT, Central Circle-2. Jaipur for initiating action u/s 153C of the Act for AY 2013-14 to 2019-20 and accordingly, notice u/s 153C of the Act dated 22.03.2022 for AY 2014-15 issued through ITBA requesting to file your return for AY 2014-15 within 30 days of the receipt of the notice. The notice was duly served on e-mail id as well as e-filing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isposed of accordingly, following the kind directions as mentioned in the order of the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 09.11.2022 and therefore, the objections as raised by the assessee are of no means, only the assessee is trying to avoid due taxes by using its colorful & camouflage objects. Ld. AO thereby also issued a Show-cause notice to pass best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act was to the assessee considering the regular non-compliance of the assessee regarding the statutory notices issued to the assessee. In reply the assessee only filed its objections against the initiation of proceedings, however, the assessee has not filed the requisite details/documents as called for. 5.3 Ld. AO noted that the assessee has declared total income of Rs. 32,64,680/- in its return dated 29.07.2014, filed u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee derives income from house property, rental income, interest from Banks during the period under consideration. Further, Assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed for AY 2014-15 on 31.07.2016 assessing total income at Rs. 41,42,410/-. The additions made to the returned income in the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Shri Roopchand Pareta (as purchaser) for sale of land admeasuring 0.96 hectares of Khasra Nos. 1160 rakba 0.27 hectare and 1163 rakba 0.69 hectare (having total area 0.96) for total sale consideration of 1,50,00,000. The sale consideration was paid as under:- Date amount Mode Remarks 15.07.2013 5000000 Cheque Cheque No. 001083, Axis Bank, Kota 20.07.2023 5000000 Cheque Cheque No. 001081, Axis Bank, Kota 24.07.2013 5000000 Cheque Cheque no. 001082, Axis Bank, Kota. 06.06.2013 5000000 Cheque Cheque no. 001079, Axis Bank, Kota. Total 1,50,00,000 5.6 Copy of irrarnama dated 12.06.2013 written by Shri Brijmohan Pareta S/o Shri Roopchand and Om Prakash Gupta S/o Shri Ram Pratap for M/s S.G. Enterprises, 3-A-12, Rangbadi Main Road, Talwandi, Kota regarding aforementioned lands specified in para (i), (ii) and (iii)]. In this ikrarnama, it has been clearly admitted by the purchaser and seller that the land mentioned above has been sold by the seller in favour of purchaser and the consideration has also been received by the seller which is totaling to 8,27,00,000. It is also mentioned that the possession over the land has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me limit for payments may be increased for maximum 4 months and the seller would pay interest on the remaining amount at 1.25% monthly interest rate. From careful perusal of aforementioned facts, it is evident that the land admeasuring 6.55 hectares have been agreed to sold by Shri Gopal Lal S/o Shri Purushottam Lal resident of Mahaprabhu Ji Ka Mandir, Kota to M/s S.G. Enterprises through its partners Shri Brijmohan Pareta S/o Shri Roopchand Pareta, Shri Shyam Sunder Goyal S/o Shri Ramnarayan Goyal and Shri Om Prakash Gupta S/o Shri Ram Pratap @ 25 lakh per bigha (i.e. 10,43,90,625) and possession of the same was also handed over to the buyer by the seller in pursuance of the four agreements as discussed above. The purchaser has provided the sale consideration to the seller in cash and through cheques on different dates as specified in the sale agreements. In all the sale agreements, it is clearly written that the possession of the land has been handed over to the purchaser by the seller. The seller has shown capital gain arouse on sale of land admeasuring 6.55 hectares to M/s S.G. Enterprises as under:- F.Y. 2011-12 (A.Y. 2012-13): Total sale consideration received ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee has filed its declaration and undertaking in Form-1 of the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and pay due taxes as per the scheme. Since, the issue regarding cost of acquisition of the land attains its finality in favor of revenue, therefore, Considering the principle of consistency and the facts of the case as discussed in the assessment order of the assessee for AY 2012-13, the cost of acquisition for the 5.24 hectares land sold by the assessee during the year under consideration, computed hereunder:- Cost of acquisition of 1.31 hectare land as on 01.04.1981 Rs. 31,328/- Cost of acquisition of 5.24 hectare land as on 01.04.1981 31328/1.31*5.24 Rs. 1,25,312/- Indexed Cost of acquisition of 5.24 hectare land as on 01.04.2013. However, as per the ITR filed by the assessee for AY 2014-15, the assessee has claimed cost of acquisition of 5.24 hectares land at 4,42,28,656. Therefore, assessee claimed cost of acquisition as excessive in its ITR for AY 2014-15 amounting to Rs. 4,30,51,976/- (44228656-1176680) was disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee on account of Long Term Capital Gain for the assessment year under considera....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., based on assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 31.07.2016 and ITR of the assessee, the claim of the assessee u/s 54F of the Act is restricted to the amount of Rs. 45,34,469/-. Accordingly the assessment was completed. 6. Feeling dissatisfied with the above order of the assessment the assessee has carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised before the ld. CIT(A), the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below:- "4.2 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the appellant as against the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment order for the year under consideration. The contentions/submissions of the appellant are being discussed and decided as under:- The brief facts on the issue as noted by the Id. AO are that land was sold by Shri GopalLal in favour of M/s S.G. Enterprises through agreement to sales. Therefore, capital gain liability arises on ShriGopalLal on the year of executing agreement to sale which is F.Y. 201112 and F.Y. 2013-14. The seller has also shown the transactions in his ITR filed for the A.Y. 2012-13 and 2014-15 disclosing the sale consideration as me....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....condition of showing that the seized records had a bearing on the determination of the total income of the assessee. There is nothing in the satisfaction note showing the satisfaction of the AO that such seized records received by him had a bearing on the determination of Total Income due to undisclosed income of the Assessee (TP) if any, which a condition precedent. There is no categorical finding recorded by AO how and which information in the seized records had a bearing over the assessee income. there is nothing in the satisfaction note recorded by the AO (of TP) that the search party has disclaimed the seized documents and that such documents/information contained therein to the effect and in the sense that the alleged excessive claim of COA and ICOA, coming out therefrom did not belong to or relate to the SP but to other person i.e. TP (the Assessee). Hence, there no valid assumption under section 153C. Except AY 2014-15, the AO maintained a complete silence what to talk of deriving satisfaction as contemplated u/s 153C for A.Y. 2016-17. The DCIT/ACIT, Circle-2, Kota has initiated proceedings u/s 147 for A.Y. 2016-17 by issue of notice u/s 148 on dt. 29.03.2021 (PB156) and pu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the material gathered in the course of the search to the AO of the "other person" is not obliged to form any opinion with respect to escapement of income or for that matter the material likely to have an impact on the total income of the non-searched entity. At the stage of transmission of material, the AO of the searched person is only required to be satisfied that the material or documents unearthed pertain to a person or entity other than the one searched. The relevant extracts of the decision in SSP Aviation Ltd are reproduced herein below: ...................... 51. Ultimately Section 153C is concerned with books, documents or articles seized in the course of a search and which are found to have the potential to impact or have a bearing on an assessment which may be undergoing or which may have been completed. The words "have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person" as appearing in Section 153C would necessarily have to be conferred preeminence. Therefore, and unless the AO is satisfied that the material gathered could potentially impact the determination of total income, it would be unjustified in mechanically reopening or as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 block of six AYs' or for that matter all years forming part of the block of ten AYs', appears to have been put in place to cover all possible contingencies. The aforesaid provisions clearly appear to have been incorporated and made applicable both with respect to Section 153A as well as Section 153C ex abundanticautela. Which however takes us back to what had been observed earlier, namely, the existence of the power being merely enabling as opposed to a statutory compulsion or an inevitable consequence which was advocated by the respondents. ............................ 61. A reading of the aforesaid Satisfaction Notes would establish....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nced only upon the AO having formed the opinion that the material gathered is likely to inculpate the assessee. While in the case of a Section 153A assessment, the issue of whether additions are liable to be made based upon the material recovered is an aspect which would merit consideration in the course of the assessment proceedings, under Section 153C, the AO would have to be prima facie satisfied that the documents, data or asset recovered is likely to "have a bearing on the determination of the total income". It is only once an opinion in that regard is formed that the AO would be legally justified in issuing a notice under that provision and which in turn would culminate in the abatement of pending assessments or reassessments as the case may be. ................... 68. The jurisdictional AO would have to firstly be satisfied that the material received is likely to have a bearing on or impact the total income of years or years which may form part of the block of six or ten AYs' and thereafter proceed to place the assessee on notice under Section 153C. The power to undertake such an assessment would stand confined to those years to which the material may r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ra 9 of the order of the ITAT reveals that the ITAT had scanned through the Satisfaction Note and the material which was disclosed therein was culled out and it showed that the same belongs to Assessment Year 2004-05 or thereafter. After taking note of the material in para 9 of the order, the position that emerges therefrom is discussed in para 10. It was specifically recorded that the counsel for the Department could not point out to the contrary. It is for this reason the High Court has also given its imprimatur to the aforesaid approach of the Tribunal. That apart, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, argued that notice in respect of Assessment Years 2000-01 and 2001-02 was even time barred. 19. We, thus, find that the ITAT rightly permitted this additional ground to be raised and correctly dealt with the same ground on merits as well. Order of the High Court affirming this view of the Tribunal is, therefore, without any blemish. Before us, it was argued by the respondent that notice in respect of the Assessment Years 2000-01 and 2001-02 was time barred. However, in view of our aforementioned findings, it is not necessary to enter into this controversy."....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng Assessing Officer, ie., the Assessing Officer of the third party reflects a clear finding that the incriminating material received has a bearing on determination of total income of the third party for 6 assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search Is conducted or requisition is made, that such notice would have to be issued for all the years. 82. It thus flows from the provision that the receiving assessing officer must apply his mind to the materials received and ascertain precisely the specific year to which the incriminating material relates. It is only when this determination/ascertainment is complete that the flood gates of an assessment would open qua those particular years. The issuance of a notice cannot be an automated function unconnected to this exercise of analysis and ascertainment by an assessing officer. 83. The construction of section 153 A and 153 C is consciously different and is seen to apply different yardsticks to an entity searched and a third party, such yardstick being more exacting in the case of the former. The process of assessment is demanding and an assessee, once in receip....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Pr. CIT v. AbhisarBuildwell (P.) Ltd. [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC), more particularly, paragraphs 11 and 13, has prayed to observe that the Revenue may be permitted to initiate re-assessment proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act as in the aforesaid decision, the powers of the re- assessment of the Revenue even in case of the block assessment under section 153-A of the Act have been saved. .............. 3. However, so far as the prayer made on behalf of the Revenue to permit them to initiate the reassessment proceedings is concerned, it is observed that it will be open for the Revenue to initiate the re-assessment proceedings in accordance with law and if it is permissible under the law." (emphasis supplied) It is held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DevTechnofab Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 166 taxmann.com 514 (Delhi) [24-05-2024] as under.- "2. 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 of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the purpose of section 153C of the Act as the section requires that the seized material should have bearing on the determination of the total income of the assessee. The satisfaction note extract in the present case is as under:- "A search action u/s 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was carried out on 06.09.2018 at Oswal Group of Jaipur and residential premises of Shri Surya Singhal located at 278, Dada BadiExtn, Kota on 06.09.2018 was also covered in search action. During the search proceedings carried out at residential premises of Shri Surya Singhal, certain property documents regarding purchase of properties were seized. In these properties papers, a possession letter dated 13.04.2013 executed between ShriGopalLal and M/s S.G. Enterprises through its partners ShriBrijmohanPareta was also seized. This possession letter was executed for sale of land admeasuring 1.92 hectares of Khasra Nos. 1123, 1163, 1164,1165 and 1166 of Village - Devliarab, Tehsil - Ladpura, District - Kota. As per this possession letter, aforementioned land has been sold for total sale consideration of Rs. 3,00,00,000 and the seller has accepted that he has received the entire sale con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5m/90,226 24,72,750 Long Term Capital Gain 1,78,16,024 Deduction u/s 54B 1,42,87,610 Net Long Term Capital Gain 35,28,414 F.Y. 2013-14 (Α.Υ. 2014-15) Total sale consideration received 83511625 Less: 1. Cost of acquisition after indexation 2. Indexed cost of improvement 44228656 1408500 Long Term Capital Gain 37874469 Deduction u/s 54B 4534469 Net Long Term Capital Gain Nil The sale consideration of Rs. 2,08,79,000 in F.Y. 2011-12 and Rs. 8,35,11,625 (3,00,00,000+ 3,77,00,000+ 1,50,00,000+7,21,000) in F.Y. 2013-14 is duly tallied with the sale agreement executed by Shri GopalLal in favour of M/s S.G. Enterprises (except the amount of Rs. 90,625). This shows that the said land was sold by Shri GopalLal in favour of M/s S.G. Enterprises through agreement to sales. Therefore, capital gain liability arises on ShriGopalLal on the year of executing agreement to sale which is F.Y. 2011-12 and F.Y. 2013-14. The seller has also shown the transactions in his ITR filed for the A. Y. 2012- 13 and 2014-15 disclosing the sale consideration as mentioned in the sale agreements but he ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dispute in the addition made in the assessment order regarding the (i) year of taxation, and (ii) sale consideration. The dispute is regarding the adoption or working of fair market value of the land as on 01.04.1981. In the present case, the addition has been made on the basis of information already available in the return of income and assessment folders for the assessment already completed and the information available in the registered property deeds. The issue of addition pertains to the valuation as on 01.04.1981 and resultant indexed cost of acquisition which is arrived at on comparison of the data of the already available income tax records of the two years of the appellant. There is no dispute in the present case that the transaction was disclosed and the capital gains were disclosed by the appellant in the income tax return for the year under appeal. There is no addition w.r.t. sale consideration. The regular scrutiny assessment for the year under appeal had already been completed wherein no addition has been made on the issue. Even in the satisfaction note although the reference to seize documents in the form of property deeds etc. however these cannot be consi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person 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 referred to in sub-section (1) of section 153A ................." Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-3 v. AbhisarBuildwell (P.) Ltd. [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC)/[2023] 293 Taxman 141 (SC)/[2023] 454 ITR 212 (SC)[24-04-2023] has held as under.- "14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it is concluded as under (i) ............... (ii) ............... (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 the search and the other material available with the AO including the income declared in the returns, and (iv) in case no incriminating material ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) In para 11 of the order in case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-3 v. AbhisarBuildwell (P.) Ltd. (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter-alia has held as under:- "11. However, in case during the search no incriminating material is found, in case of completed/unabated assessment, the only remedy available to the Revenue would be to initiate the reassessment proceedings under sections 147/48 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions mentioned in sections 147/148, as in such a situation, the Revenue cannot be left with no remedy. Therefore, even in case of block assessment under section 153A and in case of unabated/completed assessment and in case no incriminating material is found during the search, the power of the Revenue to have the reassessment under sections 147/148 of the Act has to be saved, otherwise the Revenue would be left without remedy." The material on record has been considered. The satisfaction note does not refer to incriminating seized material from search on other person which would be having a bearing on the determination of total income of the appellant. The addition made in the assessment order is not b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the appellant are being discussed and decided as under:- In the earlier part of this order, the validity of the notice u/s 153C has not been sustained and the order of assessment is thus found to be without jurisdiction. Therefore the additions done by the learned assessing officer in the assessment order are not sustainable on this technical ground. In view of this background, the other grounds of appeal on the merits of such addition are rendered only academic and do not warrant detailed adjudication. In view of this discussion, the subject ground of appeal raised by the appellant is treated as disposed off." 7.2 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the appellant as against the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment order for the year under consideration. The contentions/submissions of the appellant are being discussed and decided as under:- In the earlier part of this order, the validity of the notice u/s 153C has not been sustained and the order of assessment is thus found to be without jurisdiction. Therefore the additions done by the learned assessing officer in the assessment order are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A.Y. 2014-15 is duly tallied with the sale agreement executed by Shri Gopal Lal in favor of M/s S.G. Enterprises. Accordingly, the capital gain liability arises on the assessee in the year of executing agreement to sale which is A.Y 2012-13 and A.Y 2014-15 and that the seller has also shown the transactions in his ITR filed these years disclosing the declared sale consideration but has taken the figure of Indexed Cost of Acquisition (hereinafter referred to as "ICOA") at a very high figure as on 01.04.1981. She also argued that the assessee had taken two different costs of acquisition in two different years. Hence, there was an excessive claim of ICOA by Rs. 4,30,51,976/- (Rs. 4,42,28,656 - Rs. 11,76,680) rightly disallowed by the AO. She also supported the further disallowance made by the AO on account of the indexed cost of boundary wall of this Rs. 14,08,500/-. She also contended that the ld. CIT(A) wrongly placed reliance on various decisions including Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (Supra). In as much as, the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assess/re-assess the total income taking into consideration the incriminating material found during search and other material available w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... completed vide Asst. order dt. 02.12.2019 u/s 147/143 (3) (PB128-152). The Asst. Order for AY 2016-17 was completed vide order dt. 29.11.2018 u/s 143(3) (PB-II161-162), Following and adding that the deduction claims u/s 54B. 5. That, initially the ACIT Circle -2, Kota ("AO1") was holding the jurisdiction, however thereafter, pursuant to a proposal received from the PCIT (Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur vide his letter No. 4626 dated 24.02.2022 for centralization of Search & Seizure cases associated with "Oswal Soap Group, Jaipur",the jurisdiction over the assessee, was transferred by the PCIT, Udaipur to the ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur ("AO 2") vide Order u/s 127 passed on 03.03.2022.(PB- 14-15) 6. That,pursuant to the search, the AO 2 issued impugned notices u/s 153C, all dated 22.03.2022 for A.Y. 2013-14 to 2019-20 (PB34)in the nameof Kamla PrabhaL/H of Shri Gopal Lal,in response to which the Assessee filedobjection letter dated 14.05.2022 (PB35-39), which remained un-responded. 7. That, consequent to the said Search & Seizure and pursuant to the ROI filed u/s 153C for different years, the AO, finally passed the Assessment Orders u/s 144 r/w S. 153C of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceedings by the court. Kindly refer CIT v. Harinagar Sugar Lad, (1989) 176 ITR 289, 291 (Bom), special leave petition dismissed by the Court: (1992) 197 ITR (St.) 1 (SC), applying Chimanram Motilal Pvt. Ltd. CT (1983) 140 ITR 809 (Bom) and Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd. V. State of Haryana, 09) 70 STC 122 (SC). 1.4 Normally there is a time-limit provided for commencement and/or the completion of the proceedings. In such a scenario, it is beyond comprehension that how, in the absence of any time limit to notice provided in Sec 153C, the action of issuing notices, can be permitted even after lapse of an indefinite period. It is wholly impermissible to argue that unlimited time-limit be granted to the AO for taking action under this section. This is for the simple reason that certainty is the hallmark of any proceedings. The sword of taxing authorities cannot be allowed to hang forever, over the head of a taxpayer. If this proposition of the AOs is accepted that will give license to the officers to take action even after lapse of 30, 40 or 50 years. The canons of limitation are ordinarily provided expressly in the Act but in their absence, they are to be impliedly inferred by the Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under sub-section (8) or sub- section (9) shall be exercisable by such Assessing Officer." From a reading of the above provision, it is clear that theauthorized officer is bound to handover the seized records within a period of 60 days to the AO of the Searched Person. A similar analogy and inference are equally applicable in the cases where the AO of the Searched Person having possession of the seized records, after deriving satisfaction is bound to handover the related record to the AO of the Third Person (which is the AO here) but not to sit over the papers for an abnormally long period of time. Accordingly, applying the same period of handing over of record within sixty days in this case the AO of the Searched Person was supposed to have handed over the seized records to the AO (i.e. before 05.09.2018). The Search having taken place in the month of September, 2018, it can be safely presumed that the AO of the Searched Person must have handed over the seized records to the AO sometime before 31.03.2019. On this aspect a useful reference can be made to case of CIT vs Jasjit Singh (2023) 458 ITR 437 (SC)(DC- 1-6), wherein it was held as under: "............
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ITR 137 (Del) * CIT (TDS) v/s Anagram Wellington Assets Management Co. Ltd. (2016) 389 ITR 0654 (Guj) * Vodafone Essar Mobile Services Ltd. v/s UOI & Ors. (2016) 385 ITR 436 (Del) * CIT (TDS) &Anr. v/s Bharat Hotels Limited (2016) 288 CTR 0682 (Kar) * CIT (TDS) v/s Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. (2012) 250 CTR 0113 (HP) * CIT (TDS) v/s C.J. International Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 0684 (Del) * Tata Teleservices Vs. Union of India, (2016) 66 taxmann.com 157 (Guj.) 2.5. The law is well settled that the provisions prescribing time must be strictly interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.M Sharma v. ITO [(2002) 254 ITR 772, 777(SC)], holding that: "Fiscal statute, more particularly a provision such as the present one, regulating period of limitation must receive strict construction. The law of limitation is intended to give certainty and finality to legal proceedings and to avoid exposure to risk of litigation to litigant for indefinite period on future unforeseen events. Proceedings, which have attained finality under existing law due to bar of limitation, cannot be held to be open for revival unless the am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or requisitioned are handed over under section 153C to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person, whichever is later" 1.2 It is submitted that the assessee made repeated request to the AO2 for supplying some vital information vide letters dated 16.04.2022 (uploaded on dated 18.04.2024 (PB 40-43), and 01.08.2022 (PB 44-47) (as to when the AO of Third Person (TP) received seized records from the AO of the Searched Person (SP). The AO2, in response, vide letter dated 26.07.2022 stated that: "As the jurisdiction over the assessee has been assigned to this office (ACIT Central Circle-2, Jaipur) vide PCIT Udaipur order u/s 127 dated 03-03-2022 circulated vide DIN NO. ITBA/COM/F/17/2021- 22/1040305411(1) dated 03.03.2022, The ACIT Central Circle-2, Jaipur became AO of the assessee on 03.03.2022. Thus, the date of receipt of seized documents by the AO of the assessee (Ms Kamal Prabha L/h of Gopal Lal) is 03.03.2022." 1.3 A Careful perusal of the said letter shows that the AO has still not come out with the correct/exact date of transfer/receiving of the seized records from the AO of the Searched Person to the AO of Third Person as per mand....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was 30.09.2020 only. Accordingly, the impugned notices u/s 153C must have been issued prior thereto but, in any case, not later than 30.09.2020, or the impugned assessment order must have been passed not later than 30.09.2020, as against which the said notices have been issued only on 22.03.2022 and the impugned assessment orders were passed on 30.03.2023 i.e. much later to the due date, which had already passed. Hence, the impugned notices issued u/s 153C as also the impugned Assessment Orders, is clearly barred by limitation. 2.3 In this regard, the contention of the AO vide letter dated 26.07.2022 (PB-48) while disposing of the objections and in Pg.5 of Asst. Order that only information belonging to only the AY 2012-13 was shared to the then AO, Kota and no seized record or material has been shared to him, is a purported attempt to misread the facts on record to bypass the specific and mandatory provisions of law in as much as the undisputed facts are that certain property documents regarding purchase of properties were seized, as specifically noted by the AO himself in the satisfaction note recorded u/s 153C of the Act. There apart, at various places including the fin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be completely beyond its jurisdiction u/s. 153A and u/s 153C, which provides that the AO shall issue notices u/s. 153C and shall pass the order for the last 6 years prior to the search year and for this purpose, first proviso to S.153C considers the date of receiving of the seized records, as the relevant financial year and the related assessment year ("search AY" for short). Accordingly, only 6 years prior to search AY can be reopened for issuing the notices and completing the assessments u/s 153C r/w S.153A. Thus, taking the date of the receipt of the seized records, as contended by the AO, in this case, being 03.03.2022, the search AY is - financial year 2021-22 and the related assessment year being AY 2022-23, the immediately preceding 6 assessment years shall be for and from 2016-17 to 2021-22. As against which, the AO has issued notices u/s153C for and from assessment years 2013-14 to 2019-20 and also passed the impugned assessment orders accordingly. This way, the assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 being out of block of 6 AY years were completely beyond jurisdiction of the AO u/s. 153A r/w S. 153C. Therefore, alternatively, if the contention of the AO is accepted, the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g regulated by the First Proviso of section 153C (1) is an issue which is no longer res integra and stands authoritatively settled by virtue of the decisions of this Court in SSP Aviation and RRJ Securities as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in Jasjit Singh. The aforesaid legal position also stood reiterated by the Supreme Court in Vikram Sujit Kumar Bhatia. The submission of the respondents, therefore, that the block periods would have to be reckoned with reference to the date of search can neither be countenanced nor accepted." 2.3 This was followed in the case of Dinesh Jindal vs ACIT[2024] 164 taxmann.com 746 (Delhi)where, after reproducing para-D, E,F the hon'ble court held as under: ".............12. Viewed in that light, it is manifest that the AY 2013-2014 would fall beyond the block period of ten years. It becomes pertinent to note that the First Proviso to Section 149(1) compels us to test the validity of initiation of action for reassessment commenced pursuant to a search, based upon it being found that the proceedings would have sustained bearing in mind the timelines prescribed in Sections 149, 153A and 153C, as they existed prior to the com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es not convince us to revert to section 153A and hold that the block period is liable to be computed from the date of search. That, in our considered opinion, would amount to rewriting section 153C which would clearly be impermissible." 2.4 Recently again held so in ATS TOWNSHIP PVT LTD vs. ACIT W.P.(C) 13790/2024 (DEL) decided on 11.12.2024. 3. Even benefit of extended block period of 10 years - not available to AO: 3.1 Firstly, the AO himself has considered the block period of 6 years instead of 10 yrs therefore, there is no question of giving the benefit of extended period of 10 years to AO. 3.2 Alternatively, even assuming the same is considered though not conceding, it is submitted and clarified that the benefit of the extended period can't be given as the impugned notices are barred by limitation in as much as, to take the benefit of the extended time limit, the 4th proviso to S. 153A (1)(b) of the Act sets out certain additional conditions, which are essentially required to be fulfilled by the AO before a notice u/s 153C r/w 153A is issued for the relevant assessment year/s. The additional condition as provided in the said 4th Pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to be quashed and set aside. 4. The law is well settled that the provisions prescribing time must be strictly interpreted as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.M Sharma v. ITO [(2002) 254 ITR 772, 777(SC)]. Even where no limit is prescribed for taking an Action under a statutory provision, delay or rather inordinate delay may be an aspect the court can consider for quashing proceedings [CIT v. Harinagar Sugar Lad, (1989) 176 ITR 289, 291 (Bom), special leave petition dismissed by the Court: (1992) 197 ITR (St.) 1 (SC), applying Chimanram Motilal Pvt. Ltd. CT (1983) 140 ITR 809 (Bom) and Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd. V. State of Haryana, 09) 70 STC 122 (SC)]. Therefore, impugned assessment order may be declared as null and void. D-GOA 1 to 4& CO 6: No Incriminating Material- Addition beyond jurisdiction. Facts: The relevant facts are already stated herein above. The Revenue in its appeal has mainly disputed the relief granted in the GOA-I based on the plea that (the CIT(A) has deleted the addition mainly on the technical ground only without giving any finding on the merits of the addition). Such a finding is absolutely contrary to the facts available ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... other material existing or brought on the record of the AO. (vii) Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under s. 153A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment." Notably, very recently the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (2023) 332 CTR (SC) 385 has affirmed the aforesaid decision of Kabul Chawla (supra). 1.2.2 Hon'ble High Court in the case of Jai Steel (India) vs. Asstt. CIT (2013) 259 CTR (Raj) 281/ 88 DTR (Raj) 1, has held that: "18. To consider the rival submissions made at the Bar in the context of the present case and the substantial question of law framed, the scope of 'assessment and reassessment of total income' under Section 153A(1)(b) and the first and second proviso have to be considered. Further, for answering the above issues, guidance will have to be sought from Section 132(1) of the Act, as Section 153A of the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....OI Filed u/s 139 on dated: Total Income Declared Under Section Assessment Completed On Dated Time limit for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) expired on dated: 2014-15 29.07.2014 Rs. 32,64,680/- 143(3) 31-07-2016 (PB 119-121) 30.09.2015 2016-17 28.07.2016 Rs. 3,43,22,560/- 143(1) 02.10.2016 30.09.2017 Thus, any variation as compared to the returned income (i.e. addition to the income) in the assessment years i.e. 2014-15 and 2016-17 (which were not pending on the date of receipt of seized records i.e. 18.03.2019), could be made u/s 153A/153C, only and only based on the incriminating material/information u/s 153C of the Act in accordance with the statutory procedure but not otherwise. In other words, all the five assessments were to be merely reiterated/reassessed at the same figure, in absence of any incriminating material. 2.1.1 In the instant case there is no undisclosed income at all based on/emanating from the incriminating material. Undisputedly, no incriminating material as such was found in as much as only and only a possession letter dated 13.04.2013 was seized which itself admittedly related to disclosed transac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax return for the year under appeal. There is no addition w.r.t. sale consideration. The regular scrutiny assessment for the year under appeal had already been completed wherein no addition has been made on the issue. Even in the satisfaction note although the reference to seize documents in the form of property deeds etc. however these cannot be considered as incriminating documents in the facts of the case. In the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income- Tax Central Circle-03, Jaipur vs M/s Rigid Conductors (Raj.) Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur in ITA. Nos. 264/JP/2022 it is held by the Hon'ble ITAT that the registered property deed cannot be considered as incriminating material. Further in the satisfaction note the bearing on the determination of total income is not from the seized material but from the information available in the return of income. Thus, the satisfaction in the satisfaction notes regarding the suggestion or possibility of the suppression or escapement or misrepresentation, if any, of income is not emanating from incriminating seized material from the search on the other party. In the present case the satisfaction arrived at by the learned AO before initiating the proceedings u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oming out of the agreement to sale (and the possession letter). There is a minor variation of Rs. 90,625/-, however, that difference is only between the master agreement to sale showing Rs. 10,43,9025/- (reproduced at Pg 24-27 of assessment order) and the 3 separate agreement totaling to Rs. 8.27 crores (Rs. 3 Cr.+ 3.77Cr + 1.50 Cr.) and Rs. 7.21 Lakhs which was considered as advance amount (mentioned in master agreement itself), shows a lesser amount when compared with the total amount of sale consideration of Rs. 10.43 Cr. But in any case, the four ikrarnama not being seized material and the assessee having already considered the Rs. 10,43,9025/- such difference is irrelevant and therefore even the AO did not make any addition of that amount and rightly so. 2.2.2. A reference can be made to the assessment order dt.02.12.2019 for A.Y. 2012-13 (PB 128-152), again, the LTCG arising from the same vary transaction has been disclosed. The AO even recomputed total income at Rs. 1,40,32,239/-against which, the appellant filed appeal before the Ld. CIT Appeal No. CIT(A), Kota/10388/2019-20(PB154- 155). Finally, the appellant opted for VSV, 2020(PB-153). 2.2.3. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... where no incriminating material is found/unearthed during the search, the Assessing Officer cannot assess or re-assess taking into consideration the other materials in respect of unabated/completed assessments. (d) The question of whether any material found during the course of proceedings under Section 132 of the Act in the case of Hubtown Limited is incriminating or otherwise has to be tested based only on the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer/s. The contents of the said satisfaction note are the only item/material to be looked at in this regard and respondent cannot seek to augment, supplement or add to materials recorded to support the claim that incriminating material has been found. Further respondent cannot refer to any other documents or material to establish such a claim. We find support in (i) Ananta Landmark Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) and (ii) Jainam Investments (Supra), where the Courts have held that the question of the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction to undertake proceedings has to be tested/examined only on the basis of reasons recorded at the time of issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Act seeking to reopen an assessment. These reasons cann....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss/re- assess petitioner under Section 153C of the Act;" 3.2 In PCIT vs. Prominent Real Tech (P.) Ltd., [2022] 143 taxmann.com 271 (Delhi)(DC10-21)), wherein at para 6 it was held as under: "6. Further, in the present case, the Assessing Officer in the satisfaction note has recorded that the documents found during the search pertained to assessee and therefore it is a fit case for initiation of proceedings undersection 153C of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer failed to record as to how the documents found during search reflected any undisclosed income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer, without even demonstrating/or drawing any nexus of the seized documents with the undisclosed income of the assessee, merely on the ground that the seized documents belong to the assessee-initiated proceedings under section 153C of the Act, which is against the settled position of law in several decisions of this Court." 3.3. Pr.CIT (Central) - 2 v. Index Securities (P.) Ltd. [2017] 86 taxmann.com 84 (Delhi) HC(DC24-32). 4. Review not permissible: Thus, now taking up the same issue (on merely finding of the same seized documents being ikranama, possessio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the satisfaction derived by the AO of the SP. After referring to the assessment records of assessee for different years he made vague allegations, that too in relation to (i.r.t) AY 2014-15 only to the effect that: "The sale consideration of 2,08,79,000 in F.Y. 2011-12 and 8,35,11,625 (3,00,00,000+ 3,77,00,000+ 1,50,00,000+ 7,21,000) in F.Y. 2013-14 is duly tallied with the sale agreement executed by Shri Gopal Lal in favor of M/s S.G. Enterprises (except the amount of 90,625). This shows that the said land was sold by Shri Gopal Lal in favor of M/s S.G. Enterprises through agreement to sales. Therefore, capital gain liability arises on Shri Gopal Lal on the year of executing agreement to sale which is F.Y. 2011-12 and F.Y. 2013-14. The seller has also shown the transactions in his ITR filed for the A.Y. 2012-13 and 2014-15 disclosing the sale consideration as mentioned in the sale agreements but he has taken the figure of indexed cost of acquisition at a very high figure which can be established from the following facts: As on 01.04.1981, Shri Gopal Lal has taken cost of land admeasuring 1.31 hectares at 3,15,000 (i.e. 2,40,458 per hectare) and after claiming in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sfaction that the alleged excessive claim emanated there from so as to fulfill the condition of showing that the seized records had a bearing on the determination of the total income of the assessee. 5.5. There is nothing in the satisfaction note showing the satisfaction of the AO that such seized records received by him had a bearing on the determination of Total Income due to undisclosed income of the Assessee (TP) if any, which a condition precedent. There is no categorical finding recorded by AO how and which information in the seized records had a bearing over the assessee income. On this aspect a useful reference can be made to the caseCanyon Financial Services LTD. V ITO, (HC) Delhi (DC 9-16), as affirmed inITOV Canyon financial (2018) 91 taxmann.com 252 (SC) (DC 7-8) holding that: "Further, satisfaction notes recorded by Assessing Officer of assessee and Assessing Officer of Searched Person were identically worded - No reason was recorded how satisfaction note of Assessing Officer of assessee was a carbon copy of satisfaction note of Assessing Officer of Searched Person - High Court by impugned order held that in above circumstances, proceeding initiated a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....terestingly, the DCIT/ACIT, Circle-2, Kota has initiated proceedings u/s 147 for A.Y. 2016-17 by issue of notice u/s 148 on dt. 29.03.2021 (PB156) and pursuant there to, a notice u/s 143(2) has also been issued on 18.06.2021 (PB 157-160). The reasons recorded for the reopening u/s 147/148 is reproduced here under. "On perusal of record it is found that in A.Y 2014-15, assessee had deposited Rs. 3,33,40,000/- in Capital Gain Account Scheme(CGAS) and claimed deduction under section 54B for Long Term Capital Gain(LTCG) arise due to sale of capital asset. Assessee failed to purchase new assets within time limit prescribed under section 54B and during A.Y.2016-17, declared LTCG of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- and paid income tax accordingly whereas LTCG was to be paid on whole amount of Rs. Rs. 3,33,40,000/- deposited in CGAS. The assessee has not utilized the balance amount of Rs. 33,40,000/- (Rs. 3,33,40,000 - Rs. 3,00,00,000) as per provision of section 54B." Thereafter, the proceeding wereAsst. u/s 143/147 has been dropped and completed u/s 153C on 30.03.2023 under block assessment (for AY 2016-17). It is evidently clear from a reading of the above reasons that the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....V, 2020 the same cannot be raised/reopened by the revenue under the pretense of search or in any other manner whatsoever. In this regard specific attention is drawn on S. 5(3) of Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 which is reproduced hereunder: "(3) Every order passed under sub-section (1), determining the amount payable under this Act, shall be conclusive as to the matters stated therein and no matter covered by such order shall be reopened in any other proceeding under the Income-tax Act or under any other law for the time being in force or under any agreement, whether for protection of investment or otherwise, entered into by India with any other country or territory outside India." (Held in Satish Kumar Dhingra vs. AO [2024] 166 taxmann.com 290 (Delhi)). 4. The ld. AO wrongly drawn adverse inference from the disclosures made in Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas-2020 "DTVSV, 2020": 4.1 The ld. AO in the impugned assessment order at Para 11 pg.32 alleged that the appellant has preferred and got the matter settled under DTVSV, 2020 (PB153). Thus, he inferred that otherwise the appellant has conceded the correctness of addition so made by the AO. Such an int....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly, we rely upon the detailed submissions dt. 23.10.2024 which were made before the Ld. CIT(A). 7. We also strongly rely upon this part of the order of CIT(A) staring from 4.2 pg. 28 to pg. 46. CO 7 (8): Invalid charging interest u/s 234A & 234B: Submission: 1. That, a Search & Seizure action u/s 132 or Survey u/s 133A of the Income tax Act,1961 was carried out on Oswal Group of Jaipur on 06.09.2018 pursuant to which in the case of assessee also the Assessment was completed u/s 144 r.w. S.153C on dt. 30.03.2023 at total income of Rs. 4,86,02,890/- by making addition of Rs. 4,44,60,476/-. 2. That, the age of assessee (Shri Late Gopal Lal Goswami who expired on dt. 04.10.2020) was of 81 Yrs. 3. That, there is a clear errorin the captioned assessment order in as much as while computing total tax liability of Rs. 3,46,66,490/-, interest u/s 234B amounting to Rs. 1,72,74,400/- was also charged upon assessee. However, no such interest was legally payable by the assessee; on bare reading of the relevant provisions, being S. 207 and 208 of the Act. 4. It is submitted that Sec. 207 & 208 are very specific and categorical and pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e), in respect of the total income of the assessee which would be chargeable to tax for the assessment year immediately following that financial year, such income being hereafter in this Chapter referred to as "current income". (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to an individual resident in India, who- (a) does not have any income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession"; and (b) is of the age of sixty years or more at any time during the previous year." On a reading of section 207 of the Act, it is seen that it speaks of liability to pay advance tax. As per sub section (1), advance tax has to be paid on the total income of the current year in accordance with the provisions of sections 208 to 219 of the Act. However, sub section (2) of section 207 which has been inserted by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1- 4-2012 carves out an exception by stating that sub section (1) would not be applicable to a resident individual assessee who does not have any income chargeable under the head profits and gains of business and profession and if he has attained the age of 60 years or more at any time during the releva....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peal against order u/s 154 has quashed the levy of the interest u/s 234B allowing the appeal of the assessee in the following words: "5.1 I have perused the computation of income filed by the appellant and find that the appellant during the year has income from house property and capital gains and has no business income. The payment of advance tax is governed by Section 207 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The relevant portion is reproduced herein as under: .......207 [(1) Tax shall be payable in advance during any financial year, in accordance with the provisions of section 208 to 219 (both inclusive), in respect of the total Income of the assessee which would be chargeable to tax for the assessment year immediately following that financial year, such income being hereafter in this Chapter referred to as "current income"] [(2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to an individual resident in India, who (a) does not have any Income chargeable under the head "Profit and gains of business or profession", and (b) Is of the age of sixty years of more at any time during the previous year.] 5.2 The order of the AO is not a sp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench in DB CWP No.12387/2022. 53-54 10. Copy of the objection letter by assessee dt. 26.11.2022. 55-58 11. Notice issued u/s 142(1) dt. 01.03.2023 along with reply dt. 07.03.2023. 59-63 12. Show Cause Notice issued u/s 142(1) dt. 16.03.2023 along with Reply dt. 19.03.2023 accompanying evidences in respect of construction of residential house. 64-118 13. Assessment Order u/s 143(3) for AY 2014-15 dt.31.07.2016 119-121 14. Appeal Order u/s 250 dt. 28.12.2022 by CIT(A) - IV, Jaipur 122-125 15. Order dt. 20.01.2023 by ACIT CEN CIR-2, Jaipur giving effect to appeal order dt.28.12.2022 126-127 Regarding AY 2012-13 16. Assessment Order u/s 143(3) for AY 2012-13 dt.02.12.2019 128-152 17. Vivad se Vishwas Form-5 Dt.19.04.2021 for AY 2012-13 153 18. Copy of CIT(A) u/s 250 dt.20.01.2023 for AY 2012-13 154-155 19. Copy of Notice u/s 148 dt.29.03.2021 for AY2016-17 156 20. Copy of Notice u/s 143(2) dt. 18.06.2021 for AY2016-17 157-160 Sr. No. Case Laws Pg. No. 1. CIT vs. Jasjit Singh (2023) 458 ITR 437 (SC) 1-6 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted in the assessment order passed under scrutiny AY 2013 dated 02.12.2019, copy of which is placed at assessee's paper book page 128 to 152 and in particular paper book page 129 was relevant. Such facts are also mentioned in the satisfaction note page 1 and 2 (copy placed at ABP 16-17). Hence, whether it was a case of seized possession letter or the four Ikraarnama, they all are related to the disclosed transaction. The entire transaction of sale was considered by the assessee in assessment year 12-13 and 14-15 wherein the total sale consideration of Rs. 10.43 crore was considered and the resultant capital gain was declared in both the years. It is submitted that the AO himself has repeatedly admitted in the satisfaction note itself that the assessee had already declared the amount of LTCG in these two years (Rs. 2,08,79,000/- in AY 12-13 and Rs. 8,35,11,625/- in AY 14-15 totally to Rs. 10.43 crs.). He submitted that it was a case of review of the same information which was already available and no new materials much less incriminating material could be found nor was so relied upon by the authorities and therefore, no addition was at all permitted in a completed unabated assessmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act as invalid without appreciating that there is specific reference to incriminating seized material in the satisfaction note recorded by A.O for issue of notice u/s 153C of the Act and thereby the relied upon material were recovered on account of search and is supported by the findings of search/post search proceedings. Thus, we note that there are three grounds by which revenue challenge that the ld. CIT(A) should have considered the merits of the dispute before directing to delete the addition considering the technical ground of the assessee suggest that it challenges the validity of the proceeding u/s. 153C of the Act. Therefore, we considered to decide these three grounds together. So, while going on the issue it would be appropriate to note the contention of the Satisfaction note recorded in this case, which reads as follows from the paper book page 16 and 17 of the paper book filed; "A search action u/s 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was carried out on 06.09.2018 at Oswal Group of Jaipur and residential premises of Shri Surya Singhal located at 278, Dada BadiExtn, Kota on 06.09.2018 was also covered in search action. During the search proceedings carried out a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eller in pursuance of the four agreements as discussed above. The purchaser has provided the sale consideration to the seller in cash and through cheques on different dates as specified in the aforementioned sale agreements. In all the sale agreements, it is clearly written that the possession of the land has been handed over to the purchaser by the seller. The seller has shown capital gain arouse on sale of aforementioned land admeasuring 6.55 hectares to M/s S.G. Enterprises as under: F.Y. 2011-12 (A.Y. 2012-13) Total sale consideration received 2,08,79,000 Less: 1. Cost of acquisition after Indexation 2. Indexed cost of Improvement 24,72,750 5m\,90,226 Long Term Capital Gain 1,78,16,024 Deduction u/s 54B 1,42,87,610 Net Long Term Capital Gain 35,28,414 F.Y. 2013-14 (A.Y. 2014-15) Total sale consideration received 83511625 Less: 1. Cost of acquisition after Indexation 2. Indexed cost of Improvement 44228656 1408500 Long Term Capital Gain 37874469 Deduction u/s 54B 33340000 4534469 Net Long Term Capital Gain nil The sale consideration of Rs. 2,08,79,000 in F.Y. 2011-12 and Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e ld. AR was that the same was supplied by the appellant during post search investigation and were not seized while the search. These facts, were not controverted by the ld. DR. We find that these facts are narrated in the assessment order for AY 2012-13 (PB-129). It is not disputed that the entire transaction of sale consideration of Rs. 10.43 crore was disclosed in the return of income filed for AY 2012-13 and AY 2014-15 and the capital gain liability arising thereon was duly disclosed therein. These crucial facts are stated in the satisfaction note itself and even the ld. CIT DR admitted the same. It was not the case of the revenue that based on the seized material, the appellant was found to have declared lesser amount of sale consideration than declared in the agreements and in the return of income. Thus, once admittedly no undisclosed income was emanating from the seized documents, the same could not be termed as incriminating material. In the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income- Tax Central Circle-03, Jaipur vs M/s Rigid Conductors (Supra) Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur in ITA. Nos. 264/JP/2022 it is held by the co-ordinate bench of ITAT Jaipur, that the registered property deed cannot ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....v) in case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened by the AO in exercise of powers under sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned under sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved." (emphasis supplied) 12.1 We also note that Hon'ble Delhi High Cout while dealing with the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (2015) 61 taxmann.com 412 (Delhi), held that ; ".............(v) In absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment can be reiterated and the abated assessment or reassessment can be made. The word 'assess' in s. 153A is relatable to abated proceedings (i.e. those pending on the date of search) and the word 'reassess' to completed ....