THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1) vs. M/S. GOLDEN PEACE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,

PDF · subscribers
TXA/3/2025HC BombayHCBM05000901202522 September 20263 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that there were no substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue. The Court noted that both the First Appellate Authority and the ITAT had arrived at concurrent findings of fact. The First Appellate Authority had found that the pen drive did not contain incriminating material, one of the individuals whose statement was considered was not an employee of the respondent, and the other employee's statement did not specifically incriminate the assessee. The ITAT had confirmed these findings. Since the ITAT's order was based on concurrent findings of fact by two appellate authorities, the High Court found no substantial question of law to admit the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

What were the facts?

These appeals were filed by the Revenue against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had confirmed the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The dispute concerned additions made to the income of the assessee, M/s. Golden Peace Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., based on material seized during an assessment. The material in question included a pen drive with accounts and two statements purportedly from employees. The First Appellate Authority and the ITAT both found that this material did not incriminate the assessee under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, as one individual was not an employee and the other's statement did not specifically incriminate the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances, the ITAT's order is sustainable in law when the jurisdictional requirement of recording satisfaction by the Assessing Officer was duly complied with and the Assessing Officer had validly assumed jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act upon recording the requisite satisfaction regarding the seized material belonging to the Respondent? 2. Whether the findings of the ITAT are perverse in law in ignoring the material evidence demonstrating that the mandatory satisfaction under Section 153C was properly recorded by the Assessing Officer? Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. However, the findings of the lower authorities, confirmed by the ITAT, indicate that the assessee likely argued that the seized material was not incriminating. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue argued that the Assessing Officer had duly complied with the jurisdictional requirement of recording satisfaction and had validly assumed jurisdiction under Section 153C based on the seized material. They contended that the ITAT's findings were perverse for ignoring evidence of proper satisfaction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Meena IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2025 WITH TAX APPEAL NO. 3 OF 2025 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- I (1) …. APPELLANT VERSUS M/S. GOLDEN PEACE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. ….RESPONDENT Ms. Susan Linhares, Standing Counsel for the Appellants. Mr. Tanveer Singh with Ms. Amrita Dimri, Advocates for the Respondent. CORAM:- VALMIKI MENEZES & AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ. DATED :- 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C.: 1. hese appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act are iled by the Revenue. he substantial questions of law which are pressed forth seeking admission of these appeals are as follows: I. Whether in the facts and circumstances, the ITAT's Order is sustainable in law when the juri ictional requirement of recording satisfaction by the Assessing Oicer stood duly complied with and the Assessing Oicer had validly assumed juri iction under section 153C of the Income Tax Act upon 22nd September, 2026 recording the requisite satisfaction regarding the seized material belonging to the Respondent? II. Whether the indings of the ITAT are perverse in law in ignoring the material evidence demonstrating that the mandatory satisfaction under section 153C was properly recorded by the Assessing Oicer?

2.

We have perused the order of the Commission of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 28.02.2024, and note that the First Appellate Authority has given detailed indings on facts holding that the material sought to be pressed as incriminating material against the Respondent cannot be considered to be incriminating the Respondent in terms of Section 153(c) of the Act. he material sought to be held as incriminating were a pen drive containing some accounts and two statements of purported employees of the Respondent. he Appellate Authority on considering the material before the Assessment Oicer has given a categorical inding that the pen drive did not contain any incriminating material for the purpose of concluding that the additions made by them was necessary; it has given a further inding that, of the two employees one was admittedly not an employee of the Respondent, while the other has not made any statement that speciically incriminates the Respondent, the Assessee. 3. he aforementioned indings on re-assessment have been conirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. he Tribunal has considered the provisions of Section 153C of the Act and its 22nd September, 2026 requirements and after applying its provisions and considering the indings of the First Appellate Authority has arrived at a concurrent indings of fact.

4.

After considering the substantial questions of law proposed we are of the opinion that there is in fact no substantial questions raised by the Revenue, as concurrent indings of the fact by two Appellate Authorities are same.

5.

Consequently, we dismiss these appeals. AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J VALMIKI MENEZES, J. 22nd September, 2026 Signed by: MEENA VISHAL BHOIR Designation: Private Secretary Date: 23/09/2026 12:14:00

More judgments on Section 153C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →