Satisfaction

• The assessee requested to the Ld. AO to furnish the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act which was not provided and the assessee retracted the statement through an affidavit confirming that the search officers recorded contrary to the answer given by them and such statements are not voluntarily and not the reliable evidence as signed under pressure. Further there is no independent and cogent evidence to corroborate the statement.The moot question in these circumstances that whether these statements are voluntarily and can be considered as reliable evidence. ITAT Pune decided on 24 June, 2021 in the case DCIT vs Shikshana Prasaraka Mandali. Kindly click the link to get full order. FCA bpmundra 9314501680 [email protected].

• Question: Q.The search in the premises of the assessees is on the basis of warrant issued in the name of B. The AO without applying his mind consciously and mandatorily had not stated in the satisfaction note that the seized documents belong to “other person” i.e; the assessee. The question is that without recording such a satisfaction can AO initiate proceedings against the “other persons i.e; the assessee” u/s 153C of the Act. ITAT Banglore Bench passed the order on Jul 30, 2021 in the case of ARSHAD ISPAT & ANR. vs. DCIT. Section 139, 147, 148, 149, 151, 153C

• Friends this case is belonging to Section 132, 143(1), 153A(1) and 153C. ITAT DELHI on Jun 30, 2020 on the issue of determining the six assessment years prior to the date of search. Facts in brief are that the document of the assessee was found during search operation on dated 9.10.2014 at the premises of Shri Mulchand Malu and Shri Vikas Malu and therefore the assessee was the “other person” to be assessed u/s 153C. Further there was undisputed facts that the documents etc., were handed-over to the A.O. of the assessee was in the month of September, 2016. It was held that therefore the six assessment years prior to the date of search in the case of the assessee is A.Ys. 2011-2012 to 2016-2017. Therefore, there is no jurisdiction with the A.O. to pass assessment order for the assessment year 2009-10 and the same was held to be without jurisdiction, void abinitio and was quashed. ACIT vs. KUBER PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. AY 2009-2010. In favour of the assessee

• Section 153C: Delhi High Court on 09.08.2019 held that since the search took place and Notice under Section 153C prior to 1st June, 2015 and, therefore, Section 153C of the Act as it stood at the relevant time applied. Therefore, the onus was on the Revenue to show that the incriminating material/documents recovered at the time of search belongs’ to the Assessee. In other words, it is not enough for the Revenue to show that the documents either pertain’ to the Assessee or contains information that relates to’ the Assessee. Further the licence issued to the Assessee by the DTCP and the letter issued by the DTCP permitting it to transfer such licence are not incriminating material and therefore jurisdiction can not be assumed by the AO under Section 153C of the Act. PCIT vs M/S. Dreamcity Buildwell Pvt.

• Section 153C- Supreme Court of India on on 5 March, 2020 Before issuing notice ‎under Section 153C of the Act, the Assessing Officer of the searched person must be ‎‎“satisfied” that, inter alia, any document seized or requisitioned “belongs to” a person ‎other than the searched person. If the satisfaction note recorded under Section 153C of ‎the Act in respect of the assessee, i.e., a third party, hold invalid entire proceedings taken ‎there under is null and void. However, in the case where the Assessing Officer of the ‎searched person and the other person is the same, it is sufficient by the Assessing Officer ‎to note in the satisfaction note that the documents seized from the searched person ‎belonged to the other person i.e; the assessee. In the case of M/S. Super Malls Private ‎Limited. vs PCIT.‎ AY 2008-09

• ITAT KOLKATA on Mar 13, 2020 quashed the reopening of assessment and allow this appeal of the assessee on the ground that the re-opening is bad in law as the Assessing Officer has not independently applied his mind to the material and recorded reasons which are vague and merely based on borrowed satisfaction.

• ITAT KOLKATA on Mar 18, 2020 held that the assessment made u/s 153A/143(3) of the ‎Act is invalid in the absence of any incriminating material found during course of search ‎hence the addition made by AO in assessment completed was beyond scope. ‎

• Approval / sanction by merely writing “Approved” to reopen the case u/s 147 is not sustainable