Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD ‘B’ BENCH, HYDERABAD.
BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L. P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Virtual Hearing) (Assessment Year : 2009-10) Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(2), Hyderabad. …..Appellant. Vs. Smt. Indrani Prasad, New Delhi. PAN AANPI 5216K …..Respondent. Appellant By : Shri YVST Sai. (D.R.) Respondent By : Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao. Date of Hearing : 04.10.2021. Date of Pronouncement : 08.10.2021. O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for Asst. Year 2009-10 arises from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad’s order dt.28.02.2020 passed in case No.10397/2019-20 in proceedings under Section 154 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
We notice at the outset that assessee's instant appeal suffers from 11 days delay in filing. Learned counsel submitted that due to the outbreak of pandemic covid 19 unable to get the documents form 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 11 days is neither intention nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond his control. Case is now taken up for adjudication on merits.
It transpires during the course of hearing that the CIT(A) herein has quashed the Assessing Officer’s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C assessment dt.30.12.2011 for want of a valid satisfaction recorded in furtherance to the search in issue dt.11.3.2010.
Learned CIT-DR vehemently contended during the course of hearing that the CIT(A) had erred in law and on Assessing Officer who was also the competent authority to assess the searched party M/s. MBS Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. He quoted hon'ble apex court’s recent decision in M/s. Super Malls Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT Civil Appeal No.2006-2007 of 2020 dt.5.3.2020 that twin rounds of satisfaction in case of a common Assessing Officer of both the searched person and that of the third party, is no more mandatory when any incriminating material is found or seized during the course of search “belongs to”, “pertains to” and “relates to” u/s.153C of the Act; as the case may be. We deem it appropriate at this stage to reproduce the Assessing Officer’s corresponding order sheet entry initiating 153C proceedings against the assessee as follows : “ ….Search & Seizure operations were conducted in the MBS Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., group of cases on 11.03.2010. During the course of search, books of accounts, documents and other loose sheets were found and seized. As per the seized documents, pages 188 to 190 of Annexure A/MBSPG/ PJT/PO-1/01 relates to Mrs. Indrani Prasad proceedings u/s.153C is initiated.
Put up notices u/s. 153C & 142(1) of the IT Act. Notice u/s. 142(1) of the I.T. Act issued on 18.11.2011. In response to the Notice u/s.142(1) the assessee filed a return for the A.Y. 2009-10 on 28.11.2011 declaring a total income of Rs.1,99,84,060. The same as placed in the file.”
We find no substance in Revenue’s foregoing sole substantive grievance. This tribunal’s co-ordinate bench common order in Mr. S. Satyanarayana & Others dt.9.12.2015 involving a batch of appeals pertaining to the very search has already concluded that the Assessing Officer’s foregoing identical note had failed to record his “satisfaction” in the prescribed manner u/s. 153C of the Act. Learned CIT-DR is fair enough before us that the Assessing Officer herein had recorded identical satisfaction in all these cases.
Coupled with this, there is yet another equally important aspect of the issue. There is hardly any dispute that we are dealing with a “search” in issue dt.11.3.2010 wherein the corresponding statutory expression “belongs to” only held the field upto 1.6.2015 when the Finance Act,
2015 inserted sub-clauses (a) & (b) to sub-section (1) of section 153C also including cases of the seized material “belongs to” or “pertains to” a person other than the searched assessee. Section 153C(2) also makes it clear that section 153A comes into play the moment of the Assessing Officer of such a third party initiates the corresponding proceedings to this effect. Coupled with all this in the 2nd proviso to sub-section (1) of section 153A that all assessments pending on the “date of initiation of search” shall abate. We hold in view of the foregoing statutory provisions that the Assessing Officer’s foregoing alleged section 153C satisfaction only incorporated the expression; whilst dealing with the alleged seized material, it only “relates to”” than “belongs to” as on the date of search and therefore also, section 153C satisfaction are found not same is not sustainable qua the instant latter aspect as well. We wish to make it clear that we are dealing with a “search” wherein the corresponding statutory provisions have to be given stricter interpretation only in light only in light of hon'ble apex court decision Commissioner of Customs Vs.
Dilip Kumar & Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1 (SC) (FB). We accordingly affirm the CIT(A)’s action under challenge holding the impugned 143(3) r.w.s. 153C assessment as lacking proper satisfaction. Ordered accordingly. 6.5. This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open court on 8th Oct., 2021.