RAMULU GOURI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIKARABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 520/HYD/2020Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 November 2021AY 2012-134 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in law and fact by deeming the seized document as 'belonging to the assessee' without proper ownership. The assessment was quashed due to the lack of a valid satisfaction note.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal arose from an assessment under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following a search action. Incriminating material allegedly indicated the assessee paid Rs. 9,50,000 as a cash donation/capitation fee for her daughter's admission.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the assessment framed under Section 153C due to a lack of a proper satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer regarding the seized incriminating material.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD ‘ B ‘ BENCH, HYDERABAD.

Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY & SHRI S.S. GODARAShri Ramulu Gouri,

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal (A.R.)

O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for Asst. Year 2012-13 arises from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Hyderabad’s order dt.28.02.2020 passed in case No.10445/2018-19/CIT(A)-2 in proceedings under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Income Tax Act,

1961 (‘the Act’).

2.

We notice at the outset that assessee's instant appeal suffers from 143 days delay in filing. Learned counsel submitted that due to the outbreak of pandemic covid 19 unable to get the documents from the department which caused the impugned delay in filing of the instant appeal. Case law Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, 1987 AIR 1353 (SC) and University of Delhi Vs. Union of India, Civil Appeal No.9488 & 9489/2019 dated 17th Dec., 2019, hold that such a delay; supported by cogent reasons, deserves to be condoned so as to make way for the cause of substantial justice. We accordingly hold that assessee's impugned delay of one hundred and fortythree days is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned. Case is now taken up for adjudication on merits therefore.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

3.

We come to the first and foremost issue of correctness of the impugned 153C assessment framed on 28.12.2017 for want of a valid satisfaction note.

4.

There is no dispute between the parties that the instant lis has arisen from the departmental search action dt.25.07.2013 carried out in the business premises of M/s. Arihant Educational Society running various educational institutions. The departmental authorities found/seized the alleged incriminating material

Rs.9,50,000 representing cash donation/capitation payment to the foregoing educational institutions for the purpose of getting admission of her daughter; as unexplained.

5.

We now come to the clinching issue as to whether the instant lis involves a valid section 153C satisfaction note or not. There is further no quarrel that the Assessing Officer in case of the searched assessee i.e. M/s. Arihant group and the third person i.e. the assessee herein are different. The former Assessing Officer i.e. DCIT, Central Circle 2(2), Hyderabad appears to have recorded his impugned satisfaction on 19.12.2016 in case of 57 third parties (assessee at Sl.No.45) that the incriminating material indicating payment of donation / capitation fees i.e. “A/CAIMS/04” in fact “belongs to the respective assessees”. He therefore sent the relevant records to the assessee's Assessing Officer i.e. ITO, Ward 1, Vikarabad; who in turn, recorded his satisfaction that foregoing seized documents only “relate to Sri G. Ramulu” as per page 2 in the assessment order dt.28.12.2017 before us.

It is at this stage that we are of the opinion that the former Assessing Officer had erred in law and on facts in terming the seized document as “belonging to the assessee” for want of ownership sense missing therein in light of Vijaybai M Chandrani Vs. CIT 333 ITR 436 (Guj); CWT Vs. Viswanath 103 ITR 530 and Late Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan VS. CIT 162 ITR 888 (SC). Learned departmental representative could not dispute the clinching factual position that the seized document “A/CAIMS/04” could not have been held to be helping to the assessee in any manner; whatsoever. We thus quash the impugned assessment for this precise reason alone.

All other pleadings on merits are rendered academic.

6.

This assessee's appeal is allowed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd Nov., 2021.

More judgments on Section 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →