AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 475
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hai Thakkar. In consequence of seizure of material allegedly pertaining to the assessee, the Assessing Officer of the Central Circle issued notices under section 153C. 2.2 The assessment for A.Y. 2018-19 was completed under section 153C on 30.09.2022, after obtaining mandatory approval from the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-1, Ahmedabad under section 153D dated 29.09.2022. Similarly, the assessment for A.Y. 2019-20 was completed under section 153C on 30.09.2022, with prior approval under section 153D accorded on 29.09.2022. In both assessment years, the Assessing Officer made only limited disallowances on account of education cess and employees' welfare fund contribution, and did not draw any adverse inference on the basis of the seized and impounded material. 2.3 For both years, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ahmedabad considered that the assessments completed under section 153C were erroneous in so far as they were prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, invoking the jurisdiction under section 263. 2.4 For A.Y. 2018-19, the PCIT issued a detailed show cause notice referring to search and seizure action carried out on 15.10.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... deal were already examined by the Ld. AO by issuing the notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act in the assessment proceedings u/s.153C of the Act and hence, the very premise of 263 proceedings the Ld.AO has not verified the details in the assessment proceedings is unjustified and bad in law and merely under the grab change of opinion by the Ld. PCIT. 3. The Ld. PCIT has erred in not considering the reply filed by the appellant vide letter dated 24.03.2025 wherein, appellant has stated that a notice u/s.142(1) of the Act dated 10.02.2022 has been issued by the Ld.AO and in response to the same appellant vide its reply dated 11.02.2022 already submitted the page-wise explanation to the seized material so recovered during the course of search at the residential premises of Shri Sursh Thakkar. 4. The Ld. PCIT has not considered the pointwise rebuttal submitted by the appellant in respect of various incriminating documents and digital data found and seized from the residential premises of Shri Suresh Thakkar vide submission dated 11.02.2022 in the 153C proceedings and the Ld. AO on being satisfied, passed assessment order u/s. 153C of the Act dated 30.09.2022 without making any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the submission made before him as well as various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant. In ITA No. 1138/Ahd/2025 for A.Y. 2019-20 1. The Ld. PCIT has erred in law and on facts in passing the order u/s. 263 of the Act by holding in Para 8 on Page 9 that "the assessment order passed by the AO u/s. 153C of the Act on 30.09.2022 for AY. 2019-20 and order of approval u/s.153D of the Act dated 29.09.2022 issued by the Addl. CIT, Central Range-1, Ahmedabad are erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Accordingly, the same are set aside to the file of the Assessing officer and Addl. CIT for examining the above issue in detail while framing the fresh assessment order. Transaction in TDR 2. The Ld. PCIT has erred in not considering that the issue under consideration as regards to the TDR and land deal were already examined by the Ld. AO by issuing notice u/s 142(1) of the Act in the in the assessment proceedings u/s 153C of the Act and hence, the very premise of 263 proceedings the Ld.AO has not verified the details in the assessment proceedings is unjustified and bad in law and merely under the grab change of opinion by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ared during the survey. The said fact was already available on record of the Ld. A.O. and after duly considering the details and explanation offered by appellant, the Ld.AO has passed the order u/s.153C rws 153D dated 30.09.2022 which is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 6. The appellant humbly submits that various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the Ld.AO are not applicable in the case of the appellant as the facts in the case of appellant are totally different and distinguishable from the facts of the case of appellant as in the case of the appellant the Ld.AO has carried out extensive and deep inquiry by issuing the notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act. 7. The Ld. PCIT has erred in law and on facts in failing to properly consider the submission made before him as well as various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant. 4. During the course of hearing, the Authorised Representative of the assessee explained the factual matrix with the assistance of the paper book filed before the Bench. He reiterated that during the search conducted on 15.10.2019 in the case of Shri Suresh Ranchhodbhai Thakkar, several documents were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....replies on 07.03.2022 and 11.02.2022 respectively. Copies of these notices and replies were also placed in the paper book. 4.4 The AR emphasised that the Assessing Officer had examined the seized documents, the materials submitted by the assessee, and the explanations furnished during the assessment proceedings. On the basis of such enquiries, the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible and sustainable view. It was contended that the PCIT, without demonstrating that the assessment orders were either erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, had merely substituted his view for that of the Assessing Officer. According to the AR, such substitution amounts only to a change of opinion, which does not confer jurisdiction under section 263. 4.5 The AR also placed on record the assessment order of Shri Rajesh Brahmbhatt for A.Y. 2023-24 to demonstrate that the alleged incriminating materials forming the entire foundation of the PCIT's action had already been subjected to taxation in that year in the hands of the concerned person. 4.6 The AR accordingly submitted that the assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 for both years was unwarranted and the revisionary....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6.3 The revisionary orders merely reproduce extracts of seized materials found in the search of a third party and summarily state that the Assessing Officer "did not examine" the issues. However, the PCIT has not recorded any finding to support this statement. He has not contradicted the notices issued by the AO or the replies furnished by the assessee. He has not verified the assessment records. He has not confronted the assessee with any adverse inference. Most importantly, he has not concluded in any categorical terms that the assessment orders suffer from any error. Thus, the orders of the PCIT lack the mandatory foundational finding of error, which is a jurisdictional requirement under section 263. 6.4 The paper book demonstrates that detailed notices were issued under section 142(1) calling for project-wise details, break-up of profits, seized material explanations, and supporting accounts; the assessee furnished complete replies, including a page-wise rebuttal of every document; the assessee furnished explanations regarding the land at Makarba and the statement under section 131 confirming joint ownership; and the assessee furnished analysis of year-wise profits demons....