TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1530
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., and the issues are common and identical, these appeals are clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is passed. Firstly, we take up appeal in ITA No. 1981/Bang/2025 Assessment Year 201415 as the lead appeal and the facts are culled out therefrom. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are the assessee is an employee of M/s. I Nurture Education Solutions Pvt. Ltd. A search action under section 132 of the Act was conducted on 21.09.2017 in the case Shri. V. G. Siddhartha and by the strength of the warrant issued, the assessee's residential premises was also searched on 21.09.2017, in connection with search proceedings in group case of M/s Coffee Day group. During the course of search proceedings, certain incriminating documents were found and seized from the assessee's residence marked as Diary A/MAR-CCD/01, Folder A/MAR-CCD/02, Notebook A/MAR-CCD/03. The case was centralized with DCIT, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore, vide order under section 127 of the Act dated 30.01.2018. The learned AO subsequently issued a notice under section 153C to the assessee to file the return of income for all the relevant Assessment Years. In response to the notices issued the assessee file....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 153C of the Act. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the notice issued under sections 143(2) of the Act is issued manually without a valid Document Identification No. ("DIN") and consequently, the notice and the consequential assessment proceedings are invalid and non est and the assessment order is liable to be annulled on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Without Prejudice, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in rejecting the appellant's plea that the common satisfaction recorded under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act for multiple assessment years (2014-15 to 2017-18). being common to all the impugned assessment years, ie. A.Y. 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18, is invalid in law. 7. The learned assessing officer is not justified estimating the income of the Appellant at Rs. 60,00,000/- and adding the same to the declared income under the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver as per the parity of reasoning of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Karanvir Singh 349 ITR 692, the Appellant denies himself liable to be charged to interest un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 153C of the Act has to be done by a separate satisfaction note for each Assessment Year. 9. Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative (in short "DR") submitted that DCIT CC 1(3) got promoted as JCIT (OSD) and was directed to discharge the same functions as AO of the assessee. Further, on the issue of a common satisfaction note recorded for issue of notice under section 153C of the Act, the learned DR relied on the Orders of the lower authorities. 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record including the written submissions. With respect to the order u/s 120(4)(b) of the Act, the Ld DR submitted Office Order No 221 of 2018, which states that promotions are being affected on in-situ basis and the officers will continue to discharge the same functions / duties as they were discharging before promotions. On the issue of common satisfaction note, we have gone through the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Sharma (supra). The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Para 53 held as follows: 53. Further, satisfaction note is required to be recorded under section 153C of the IT Act for each Asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the requirement in law. Such disastrous and harsh consequences cannot be attributed to Parliament. On the other hand, a plain reading of section 153C supports the interpretation which this Court adopts. 13. In the instant case, jurisdictional AO recorded the satisfaction on 07.03.2019 and hence 6 Assessment Years were to be reckoned from the date from which the materials were forwarded to the jurisdictional AO. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society, reported in 397 ITR 344 (SC) has clearly held that an assessment u/s 153C must be made only in respect of those assessment years for which incriminating seized material is found to be recorded in the Satisfaction Note prepared to initiate proceedings u/s 153C. 15. Respectfully following the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jasjit Singh (supra) and by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Sharma (supra), in our considered opinion, the assessment order passed by the AO for the AY 2014-15 cannot be sustained and becomes invalid. Since we have set aside the Assessment Order by allowing the legal grounds raised by the assessee, adjudi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gh Court in DCIT vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma 159 taxmann.com 179 (2022), which held that a separate satisfaction note for each assessment year is a sine qua non to initiate valid assessment proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. 6. The Ld. Assessing officer is not justified in making an addition of 1,01,55,978/- under the provisions of section 69 of under the facts and . circumstances of the case. 7. The learned Assessing failed to appreciate that the jewellery found in the lockers belonged to her sister which was linked to the bank account of her sister and not that of the Appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The learned Assessing officer is not justified in making an addition of Rs. 9,98,300 under the provisions of 69A of the Act. 9. The learned CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition of Rs. 14,15,000/- on the ground that the interest has been offered to tax in the return of Income for the impugned assessment year 2018-19, which has been accepted and assessed accordingly. 10. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver as per the parity of reasoning of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Karanvir S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cessarily be under section 153C r.w.s. 153A r.w.s. 153D of the Act and not regular assessment passed under section 143(3) of the Act. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Dinakar Suvarna Vs. DCIT (ITA No.16/2015) wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that when a material which is seized in a search proceeding is to be used to assess a person other than the searched person the AO has necessarily initiated proceeding under section 153C of the Act. Similar view was also expressed by jurisdictional Hon'ble High court in the case of PCIT Vs. VSL Mining Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No.32/2020 dated 20.09.2024 wherein the Hon'ble High court followed the decision of Coordinate Bench in the case of Dinakar Suvarna (supra) and held that when material which is seized in a search proceeding is to be used to assess a person other than the searched person, the AO has to necessarily initiate proceeding under section 153C of the Act and cannot resort to proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act even for the Assessment Year which does not abate. 21. Per contra, the learned DR fully supported the Orders of the CIT(A). 22. We have heard both the sides and perused....