Search and seizure

• 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

• Section 132, 153A What AO can do with item found in search is already disclosed in ITR and Balance Sheet submitted?IT-CASES-210-2020

• दिल्ली हाईकोर्ट ने 1 अगस्त 2017 को फैसला देते हुए कहा कि आयकर छापे के दौरान धारा 132 4 में लिए गए स्टेटमेंट अपने आप में incriminating material नहीं है केवल इस आधार पर ना तो assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153 A हो सकता है और ना ही कोई एडिशन किया जा सकता है.PCIT vs.BEST INFRASTRUCTURE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. & ORS. IT-CASES-208-2020

• 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.

• 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. ‎

• Since the assessee has shown more stock then physical stock found during search; therefore, no addition can be made on the basis of the undisclosed stock.

• incriminating material found in survey

• document found during the course of search

• Friends, it has been held that Once Settlement Commission has completed proceedings, its order has to be considered conclusive as regards matters “stated therein” per Section 245I and reopening any proceeding in respect of matters covered in order would be barred. Any reassessment proceedings sought to be excluded from purview of “case” must be in respect of Section 148 notice sent while proceedings before Settlement Commission are ongoing. Once Settlement Commission had completed proceedings, its order had to be considered conclusive as regards matters “stated therein” per Section 245I and reopening any proceeding in respect of matters covered in order would be barred. Therefore, impugned notice issued to assessee u/s. 153C could not be sustained. Hence, impugned notice and all further proceedings quashed. It was open to the respondent/Revenue to move the Settlement Commission for appropriate relief of declaration that its previous order under Section 245D (6) is void, setting out the relevant facts and circumstances. Assessee’s petition allowed