TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1332
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om seized power point presentation (PPT) named "Kautilya Airbus Proposal" found and seized from email of Deepak Talwar, being the material seized from a 3rd party in search undertaken on said 3rd party, could had been examined only in proceedings u/s.153C, hence the proceedings on this issue u/s.153A are illegal and without jurisdiction. 2. That in the absence of recording of satisfaction note in the case of person searched from whom the said seized material was found and seized, the said seized material cannot be used in asstt. of assessee. 3. That in the absence of satisfaction note being recorded in the case of assessee in respect of material found and seized in search of a 3rd person and in the absence of any mentioning for the said material to be of incriminating nature, such material cannot be used in the impugned asstt. of the assessee. 4. That under the facts and circumstances addition of Rs. 31,53,600/- u/s.69A as undisclosed salary income alleged to have been earned from "Kautilya PTE Ltd." Singapore is absolutely illegal and unjustified in law as well as on merits. 4.1. That under the facts and circumstances, Sec.69A could not had been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Firstly satisfaction of A.O. of searched person is needed, Secondly, such material is to be handed over to the A.O. of such other person who is having jurisdiction on such other person, Thirdly, the A.O, of such other person has to record satisfaction that such document/information has a bearing on the determination on the income of such other person. Only then, such material can be used for the assessment of such other person. Here, in the case of assessee. The case laws clearly provides that even if the A.O, of searched person and such other person is the same, then also, such satisfactions by both the AOS as A.O. of searched person and as A.O. of such other person has to be recorded in the files of respective assesses. This legal position has been cleared even by the CBDT in circular No.24/2015 Dtd.31.12.15. Unless and until this mandatory legal aspect is complied with, such papers cannot be used for assessment Of such other person. In the present case, neither any satisfaction has been recorded by the A.O. of Deepak Talwar Group as A.O. of said group nor there is any evidence that such document has been handed over to the A.O. of the assessee. as A.O. of the assessee. There is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T Vs. Pinaki Misra [2017] 88 taxmann.com 521 (Delhi-HC)." 7. The ld. Counsel for the assessee also brought on record the case law of CIT vs Radico Kaitan (2017) 83 taxmann.com 375 (Delhi). In this case, Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that Section 132 no doubt mandates a presumption in respect of search and seizure operations; yet textually the presumption relates to material documents and books of account seized from the assessee's premises and not from materials seized and statement recorded of third parties. Thus, the presumption given in sec. 132(4A) could be applied only to the materials found with the searched person. If any material is found from some other person, the above said presumption could not be extended to the assessee. 8. Per Contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 9. We have considered the findings given by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order as well as the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue. We find that there is a plethora of the judgment on this issue by various Benches of the Tribunal as well as by various Hon'ble High Courts. In all such cases, it is very clearly and categorically held that material found i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l seized from a 3rd party in search undertaken on said 3rd party, could had been examined only in proceedings u/s.153C, hence the proceedings on this issue u/s.153A are illegal and without jurisdiction. 2. That in the absence of recording of satisfaction note in the case of person searched from whom the said seized material was found and seized, the said seized material cannot be used in asstt. of assessee. 3. That in the absence of recording of satisfaction note by the A.O. of the assessee, in the case of assessee, in respect of material found and seized in search of a 3rd person and in the absence of any finding in the said note for the said material as being incriminating in nature, such material cannot be used in the impugned asstt. of the assessee. 4. That under the facts and circumstances addition of Rs. 78,30,000/- u/s.69A as undisclosed salary income alleged to have been earned from "Kautilya PTE Ltd." Singapore is absolutely illegal and unjustified in law as well as on merits. 5. That under the facts and circumstances, Sec.69A could not had been applied for addition of Rs. 78,30,000/- 6. That under the facts and circumstances, a....