Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order quashing assessments made under section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessments were based on an excel sheet allegedly showing undisclosed commission income routed to the assessee's son from import transactions.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C by the Assessing Officer was invalid. The excel sheet was deemed a 'dumb document' lacking evidentiary value as it did not name the assessee and was not found to be contemporaneous or incriminating material linking the assessee to undisclosed income.
Key Issues
Validity of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C and whether seized material was incriminating against the assessee.
Sections Cited
153C, 143(3), 132, 153A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI C. N. PRASAD & SHRI M. BALAGANESH
The Learned AR further relied on yet another statement of Shri Rajeev 13. Saxena recorded by Enforcement Directorate on 5-6-2021 which is enclosed in pages 258 to 260 of the Paper Book wherein, when Shri Rajeev Saxena was confronted with the documents numbering pages 1 to 131 taken out from digital device/ data given by him u/s 50 of PMLA in another case. Out of these 131 pages, only pages 121 to 131 of the said documents would be relevant for the income tax assessment framed in the case of the assessee herein. Shri Rajeev Saxena had explained the contents of the pages 121 to 131 and also confirmed the fact that the said documents were created by his staff in order to give details to Enforcement Directorate during FEMA Investigation. The relevant extract of the statement of Shri Rajeev Saxena given before the Enforcement Directorate on 05-06-2021 which is also enclosed in pages 258 to 263 of the Paper Book filed before us are reproduced below:-
Q No. 6 You are being shown documents page numbered 1 to 131 which were taken out from digital device / data given by you u/s 50 of PMLA in another case being investigated by Enforcement Directorate. It is requested to go through them and explain in the same. Ans. ……….. Page 121 to 131 is a working paper created by my staff to give the details to Enforcement Directorate during the FEMA investigation as stated in my answer no. 1.
13.1. The Learned AR placed special emphasis on the word „CREATED‟ mentioned by Shri Rajeev Saxena in the above statement and stated that the creation is always a fresh bringing into existence, something not existing earlier, for the first time. The Learned AR also drew our attention to the order of the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in connection with the Bail Application No. 3807/2022 dated 07-03-2024 in the case of Sanjay Jain Vs. Enforcement Directorate ( which is enclosed in pages 39 to 113 of the Paper Book filed before us) wherein in para 78 to 79, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had taken due cognizance of the statement of Shri Rajeev Saxena given before the Enforcement Directorate on 05-06-2021 relating the contents of pages 121 to 131 of the documents by observing as under:-
78. It is the case of the prosecution that the proceeds of crime after being in the hands of Rajeev Saxena have flowed to Rayon Trading, however, the ED has not placed on record a single bank statement to show the flow of money from Rajeev Saxena's entities to Rayon Trading. The only document relied upon by the ED is the plain paper entry/excel sheet, the genesis of which has been explained by Rajeev Saxena in his statement dated 05.06.2021, wherein it has been clarified that the said document has been created by his staff to answer the questions by the ED. The relevant part of the statement dated 05.06.2021 reads as under:
Page 121 to 131 is a working paper created by my staff to give the details to Enforcement Directorate during the FEMA investigation as stated in my answer no.1."
The paper/Excel sheet which has been handed over by Rajeev Saxena to the respondent is not a document or regularly kept accounts in the course of business according to a set of rules or system in terms of Section 34 of the Evidence Act but it is simply a paper created by the staff of Rajeev Saxena for the investigating agencies. It is thus, not a contemporaneous document and the entries contained therein are prima facie not admissible.”
The Learned AR also placed reliance on the decision of the Coordinate 14. Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Amol Awasthi Vs. DCIT in to 1348/Del/2024 consisting for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2018-19 Page | 12 except AY 2017-18 dated 13-09-2024 wherein identical facts were involved and the appeals of the assessee were allowed both on merits as well as on invalid assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C of the Act. The relevant operative portion of the said order is reproduced below:-
“33 At this stage, it would be apposite to look into the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer of Sh. Rajiv Saxena as well as the Assessing Officer of the assessee and Sh. Uday Shankar Awasthi. On a perusal of the said satisfaction notes, it is observed that the Assessing Officer of Sh. Rajiv Saxena has primarily relied upon the statement recorded from Sh. Rajiv Saxena and certain documents recovered from him or submitted by him. The concerned authority after analyzing the documents has recorded that such documents and information may have a bearing on the income of the assessee. After receiving the satisfaction note and the seized documents from the Assessing Officer of the searched person, the Assessing Officer of the assessee recorded a satisfaction note stating that the seized documents relate to the assessee and may have a bearing on his income. Accordingly, he issued notice u/s 153C of the Act. Interestingly, the Assessing Officer of Sh. Uday Shankar Awasthi recorded verbatim identical satisfaction note stating that the very same documents related to Sh. Uday Shankar Awasthi and may have a bearing on his income.
It is further relevant to note that the Assessing Officer who recorded satisfaction note for initiating proceedings u/s 1 53C of the Act in case of the assessee and Sh. Uday Shankar Awasthi is the same person. The aforesaid facts reveal that the Assessing Officer, while initiating proceedings u/s 153C of the Act was himself not sure, whether the seized documents belong/pertain to the assessee or Sh. Uday Shankar Awasthi and whether such documents would have a direct bearing on the income of either the assessee or Sh. Uday Shankar Awasthi. Since, the Assessing Officer was ambivalent as to whether the seized materials belong/pertain to the assessee or Sh. Uday Shankar Awasthi, he was not certain whether such information/document would have a direct bearing on the income of either the assessee or Sh. Uday Shankar Awasthi. That is why, the Assessing Officer has stated that such information/documents „MAY’ (emphasis by us) have a bearing on the income of the assessee or Sh. Uday Shankar Awasthi. In fact, such uncertainty in the mind of the Assessing Officer has percolated into the assessment proceedings and while framing assessment u/s 153C of the Act in case of the assessee, as, he was doubtful as to whether the assessee is the real beneficiary of the alleged commission income found from the information/documents seized from Sh. Rajeev Saxena. At this stage, we must observe, learned Departmental Representative has relied upon a judicial precedent to submit that identical satisfaction note can be made in case of two persons. However, on careful examination we have found that the said decision refers to satisfaction notes recorded by the Assessing Officers of searched person and non searched person and not by Assessing officers of two non searched persons.
35 In fact, to put it simply, the Assessing Officer has recorded a finding of fact that the assessee is not the real owner of the income and only a pass-through entity. Thus, when the Assessing Officer was himself not sure as to whether the information/seized document reveal any of undisclosed income of the assessee and when he himself has expressed the view that the assessee is merely a pass-through entity, he could not have assumed jurisdiction u/s 153C of the Act at all. Inasmuch as, proceedings u/s 1 53C of the Act could not have been initiated for merely making protective additions.
Thus, in our considered opinion, the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer, while assuming jurisdiction u/s 1 53C of the Act, is mechanical without making any inquiry or investigation and by merely relying upon the statement recorded from Sh. Rajeev Saxena and the information/document submitted by him and such information also fails to meet the test of a seizure. Each and every material found and seized from the searched person cannot be considered to be incriminating material to initiate proceedings u/s 153C of the Act in respect of a non-searched person unless the seized information/material would have a direct bearing on the income of the non-searched person. In the facts of the present case, the very action of the Assessing Officer in treating the assessee as a passthrough entity and making protective addition proves that the information/seized material received from the Assessing Officer of the searched person cannot be considered as incriminating material to implicate the assessee. Thus, in our view, not only the addition made u/s 69A of the Act on protective basis is unsustainable, but the proceeding initiated u/s 1 53C of the Act itself is without jurisdiction.
37 One more issue which has been raised before us by the assessee is regarding the completion of assessment u/s 153C read with section 143(3) of the Act. It is the say of the assessee that though the Assessing Officer can initiate proceedings in case of non- searched person u/s 1 53C of the Act, however, he has to pass the assessment order u/s 153A read with section 153C of the Act.
38 In the context of these submissions of assessee, on perusal of the satisfaction note recorded u/s 1 53C of the Act, the notice issued u/s 1 53C of the Act and the final assessment order, we have noted that the Assessing Officer has nowhere referred to section 153A of the Act. After carefully considering the submissions of learned counsel for the assessee, we find some merit in them. On a conjoint reading of section 153A, 153C and 153D of the Act, it becomes clear that in case of non-searched persons, the Assessing Officer has to initiate assessment proceedings u/s 1 53C of the Act. However, after initiating the proceedings, he has to assess or reassess the income of the non- searched person in accordance with the provisions of section 1 53A of the Act. While considering somewhat similar issue, the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in case of Indian National Congress Vs. DCIT, [2024] 160 taxmann.com 606 (Del) has observed as under:
“16. It must at the outset be noted that the Satisfaction Note which has been drawn in unambiguous terms, and more particularly in paragraph 140 thereof, recites that the AO was satisfied that this was a fit case for initiating proceedings u/s 153C read with Section 153A of the Act for AY 2014-15 to AY 2020-21. There is thus an explicit reference not only to Section 153A but also to the block of ten assessment years which were proposed to be made subject matter of the impugned proceedings. The submission, therefore, that Section 153A was not invoked is untenable. ”
39 In case of M/s. Nilesh Bharani Vs. DCIT, dated 28.03.2020, the Coordinate Bench analyzing the provisions contained u/s 1 53C and 1 53A of the Act has held as under:
“55. Thus, on a bare perusal of the plain language of the above explanation in respect of the amendment introduced in the section 153C of the Act w.e.f 01/06/2015, we find that it mandates that in case any information is found during the course of any search anywhere in respect of a person not searched, then for the purpose of reassessment of income on the basis of the same, it can only be considered by taking recourse to the provisions of the section 153C to make a reassessment of income u/s 153A of the Act and not u/s 148 of the Act to make an assessment u/s 147 of the Act. ...........................
The law as culled out from these amendments and as we have understood, the revenue officer can initiate the proceedings u/s 147 or u/s 153C - Firstly, in case, where some material is received from the AO of another person, the AO of the assessee verifies it from the information on his record of the assessee, determines its character whether incriminating or not and being an escaped income, then records a satisfaction by way of reasons—n different circumstances; u/s 148 of the Act, issues a notice u/s 148 of the Act to file a return of income and then makes a reassessment u/s 147 - Secondly, in the case of the person searched, after the search, the AO of the person searched transmits the relevant information as found by the revenue which even relates to another person not searched to the AO of the non-searched person who thereafter conducts his proceedings under same—f the Act. I .T . A . No . 6 1 2 / M u m / 2 0 2 0 Mr. Nilesh Bharaniprocedure, i.e., the AO of the said assessee verifies it from the information on his record, determines its character, whether incriminating or not and being an escaped income, then records satisfaction by way of a note u/s 153C of the Act, issues a notice u/s 153C to file a return of income for reassessment, then he makes an assessment / reassessment of such income u/s 153A of the Act. 85. Further, it is also not disputed that as per the order of the CIT (A) in this case, the Revenue came in possession of the said information in some searches carried out by the Investigation Unit on the brokers / operators of the listed scrip DB International (Stockbrokers) Ltd. Further, as noted by AO in his reasons recorded in para 2 of reasons that, this information surfaced from the search of M/s Evergreen Enterprises, so all the more it was an information pertaining to the assessee found during the course of search of a person covered u/s 153A. On perusal of the provisions of the section 153C of the Act, it is apparent that after the amendment w.e.f. 01/06/2015 therein, if the AO of the person not searched comes into possession of any information, which may not be the books of account but by way of any other document pertaining to or any information contained therein relating to the assessee not searched, then the only course available with the AO of the said non-searched person is to only proceed by recording a satisfaction u/s 153C of the Act to make a reassessment of income u/s 153A of the Act even for an extended assessment year after 31/03/2017. 86 During the course of hearing of this appeal, the above facts were not at all disputed by the CIT DR, because the CIT (A) has mentioned those very explicitly in his appellate order. It has also been observed that when an amendment in the section 153C of the Act was made by the law makers therein w.e.f. 01/06/2015, changing applicability of the provisions of the said section, no simultaneous corresponding amendment in any manner was made u/s 153A of the Act. It has also been noted that whenever amendments were made in the section 153C of the Act on other occasions, then simultaneous amendments were also made u/s 153A of the Act to make applicability of the both the provisions harmonious for the period to which these two non-obstante sections applied. For example, in the years 2003 and 201 7, substantial amendments were made in the search assessment provisions and applicability of dates of those amendments were specifically inserted therein for the searches conducted after 31/05/2003 and 31/03/2017 respectively.
However, while amending the provisions of the section 153C of the Act applicable w.e.f. 01/06/2015 there was no reference at all that the same is to be applied only in respect of the searches conducted after 31/05/2015 as has been specifically provided therein by the legislature on two other occasions as above. Thus, the provisions of the section 153C of the Act have to be seen by the AO as on the date when he receives the material from the AO of the person searched may be at any date and then apply accordingly. Therefore, it is also held that application of the provisions of the section 153C of the Act will be compulsory for all the assessment years extendable up to 10 years in the case of a non-searched person as is compulsorily for the assessee searched till 31/03/2021, even for the searches conducted prior to 01/06/2015 where the AO of the person not searched receives the alleged incriminating information after 31/5/2015.
However, in the case of a person not searched, the AO is permitted to issue the said notice u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act, only for the assessment year for which any definite incriminating information was found during the course of search for any of the preceding 6 assessment years. But for the extended 4 relevant assessment years therein, the said notice u/s 153C of the Act can be issued only when the incriminating material points escapement of income backed by an undisclosed asset of Rs 50 lakh and above and the said incriminating may not be the seized material in physical form belonging / pertaining to the assessee not searched.
Further, since the section 153C of the Act begins with a non- obstante wording overriding the application of the sections 147/148/149/151 of the Act, the AO is legally bound to take recourse to section 153C of the Act only in case of receipt of any information about any undisclosed income in any material found/ seized during the course of search in the premises of some other assessee. This is a jurisdictional fact which needs to be strictly adhered to and any lapse on jurisdictional issue cannot validate the action.
Even for the sake of argument, we do not go by the proposition that no such intimation can be passed on or given by the Investigation Unit of the income-tax department to the AO of the person not searched as the sole domain for remitting the said information to the said AO is only with the AO of the person searched as discussed above in terms of section 13(9A); but then also, if the information has otherwise been received by the AO of the person not searched from the Investigation Unit or any other AO which has come into the knowledge of the Revenue in a search conducted, then in that case, the only course available to the AO of the person not searched is to take recourse to the provisions of the section 153C of the Act for any assessment or reassessment of the said amount. Any proceedings initiated based on the said information u/s 148 of the Act cannot be held to be legal as it will be beyond the codified provisions of the law. Because, the legislature has mandated assumption of jurisdiction in such cases to assess or reassess any alleged undisclosed income found during the course of search anywhere u/s 153C of the Act, by carving out non- obstante clause for applicability of section 147 and other sections.
We have already observed in our earlier paragraphs that the entire procedure to make an assessment or reassessment of income of the alleged escaped income either u/s 148 or section 153C of the Act practically is the same except the jurisdiction and root cause which are different. The legislature has specifically carved out scope of assessment / reassessment of income of a person not searched of such alleged escaped income based on some incriminating information found during a search on some other person searched by taking recourse to the section 153C of the Act. The AO has not been empowered to extend the scope of an assessment/ reassessment u/s 153A read with the section 153C of the Act beyond the alleged incriminating material found during the course of search in the case of some other person, because assessment / reassessment in such case is specifically restricted to the income based on the said incriminating information only. Whereas, in the proceedings initiated u/s 148 of the Act, the AO may extend the scope of the assessment / reassessment on other amounts also if any information about those is on his record over and above the alleged escaped income as per the reasons recorded. The purpose of restriction of assessment for amount of income by taking recourse to the provisions u/s 153C of the Act to alleged incriminating material and not on suspicion has been upheld by the Hon”ble Supreme Court in the case of Sinhgad Technical Education Society (supra).
Accordingly, we hold that any incriminating information of any undisclosed income of the person not searched which was found during the course of a search having taken place up to 31/03/2021 on some other assessee, can only be taken into consideration for an assessment / reassessment in the hands of the said person not searched through the domain of the section 153C of the Act. Thus, any assessment / reassessment proceedings-initiated
u/s 148 of the Act in respect of the said incriminating information found during the course of a search up to 31/03/2021 on some other assessee is illegal and is ab initio as the same can be considered only by taking recourse to the provisions of the section 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act. Thus, the assessment of the said amount of LTCG, which was claimed to be exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act by the assessee, made u/s 147 of the Act is beyond the scope of section 147, albeit it can be roped in only u/s 153C. 93 If on overall appreciation of the scheme of assessment / reassessment of income after the income-tax searches on the assessee searched and also for the persons not searched based on detection of some incriminating information during the said searches conducted upto 31/03/2021, the following legal course of action is open for the AOs, which can be summed up, in the following manner: “(i) It is mandatory for the AO of the person searched to make an assessment / reassessment of income of the said assessee u/s 153A of the Act for the 6 assessment years prior to the date of search and also for the extended 4 relevant assessment years, subject to fulfillment of the prescribed conditions for the same, on the basis of an income-tax search conducted on him. (ii) However, in the assessment / reassessment orders passed within the scope of section 153A of the Act, the AO cannot consider any undisclosed income detected by way of an incriminating information pertaining / relating to the said assessee, during an income-tax search conducted in the premises of some other assessee(s), even conducted at the same time or in some connected matter. In such a case where AO gets any information or material about any assessee from the search of some other person, he can, make assessment of the undisclosed income/ amount emanating from such information or material for the assessment / re assessment vide separate assessment / reassessment orders to be passed u/s 153A by taking recourse to the provisions of the section 153C of the Act. Because the cause of action for the said incriminating information for different amounts had originated in different search(es) in the different premises of other assessees and for the same, the mandatory route legislated u/s 153C of the Act must be followed. (iii) Further, an assessee can also be assessed multiple times u/s 153C r.w.s 153A of the Act, despite having already been assessed u/s 153A of Act on the basis of an income-tax search in his premises, where the incriminating information has been received u/s 153C of the Act by the AOs of the searched person as well as of the person not searched, which information originates in different searches at different times on different persons as well. ”
Viewed in the context of observations made by the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court and the Coordinate Bench in the decisions referred to above, the Assessing Officer assuming jurisdiction u/s 153C of the Act in case of a non-searched person, though has power to initiate proceedings u/s 1 53C of the Act upon receipt of incriminating material from the Assessing Officer of the searched person, however, he has to complete the assessment u/s 1 53C read with section 153A of the Act. An assessment order passed in any other manner, in our view, may not muster judicial scrutiny. 41 . Thus, on overall consideration of facts and materials on record and keeping in view the principles laid down in the judicial precedents cited before us by both the parties we hold that not only the additions are unsustainable, but, the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 1 53C of the Act, itself, is invalid. We order accordingly.”
The ld AR on merits of the addition further submitted that the excel 15. sheet which has been the basis of addition by the ld AO in the hands of the assessee for various Assessment Years, admittedly does not contain the name of the assessee. The excel sheet in several places mentioned “to be identified”. While this is so, it is not known how the revenue is able to attribute the transaction reported by the staff of Shri Rajeev Saxena as “to be identified” to be attributable to assessee herein. Further, it is a fact that name of the assessee‟s son Shri Amol Awasthi has been mentioned in the excel sheet. But the excel sheet reflects payment made by Shri Amol Awasthi to Shri Rajeev Saxena, whereas the Income Tax Department is alleging that monies have been received by Shri Amol Awasthi from Shri Rajeev Saxena on behalf of the assessee in order to make addition in the hands of the assessee. He submitted that the entire excel sheet is a dumb document which was given in person by Shri Rajeev Saxena which had no corroborative evidence in support of the allegations that the same represents commission received by Shri Amol Awasthi at the behest of assessee herein from Shri Rajeev Saxena in connection with import of goods by India Potash from Uralkali, Page | 20 Russia. Further, he submitted that excel sheet contains transactions prepared for 7 years in one go which is prepared by staff of Shri Rajeev Saxena. It cannot be construed as formal books of account as it is unusual phenomenon to maintain accounts for 7 years in a single excel sheet which itself makes the said excel sheet lacking evidentiary value and further the very fact that the excel sheet is compiled for 7 years go to prove that the same have been prepared and handed over to Enforcement Directorate as per the request of Enforcement Directorate by Shri Rajeev Saxena through his staff. The same, in any manner whatsoever, cannot be construed as an incriminating material found during the course of income tax search of Shri Rajeev Saxena or Sanjay Jain and consequentially initiating the proceedings u/s 153C of the Act in the hands of the assessee on the assumption that this excel sheets pertains, belong or relate to the assessee herein become invalid and void ab initio.
On perusal of the aforesaid contentions of both the sides and the 16. relevant documents placed on record together with the relevant judicial precedents relied upon by the parties, we find that there is absolutely no document or any evidence which show or reflect the name of the assessee as a beneficiary or in any other manner. Even the enquiries that were sought to be conducted by FT & TR Division of CBDT by making as many as 37 references to various countries to ascertain the involvement of assessee qua the import transactions from Uralkali, Russia did not reveal any information adverse to the assessee. The assessee was only Managing Director of IFFCO and not Indian Potash Ltd. The ld DR had candidly admitted that the transactions of payment of commission allegedly to assessee are with regard to the import transactions of Indian Potash Ltd from Uralkali, Russia. Thus, the transaction pertaining to Indian Potash Ltd obviously could not be under the control of the assessee herein who has nothing to do with Indian Potash Ltd. The information in the form of excel sheet was created by the staff of Shri Rajeev Saxena and provided to Enforcement Directorate. Hence, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be construed as a seized material. Further it is not in dispute that the name of the assessee was not even reflected in the said excel sheet which is the prime basis for making the addition on account of alleged commission in the hands of the assessee. Hence, the said excel sheet cannot be construed as incriminating in nature qua the assessee as it does not belong, pertain or relate to the assessee. Accordingly, it cannot have any bearing on the determination of total income of the assessee. Hence, the very basis of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C of the Act qua the assessee is totally flawed. It is very strange to note that the income tax department while recording the statement u/s 132(4) of the Act from Shri Rajeev Saxena on 02-07-2019 during the course of his income tax search, had, vide Question No. 4 had put a direct question seeking details about Uralkali, Russia trading transactions. It is pertinent to note that the first three questions are very general in nature. This very question vide Q. No. 4 thereon itself goes to prove that there was absolutely no seizure of any information or any material or any document made by the Income Tax Department during the course of Income Tax Search and that the income tax department was only trying to seek clarifications from Shri Rajeev Saxena on the information already available with it in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. Accordingly, the fact of existence of no incriminating material found during the course of income tax search of Shri Rajeev Saxena stand established beyond reasonable doubt and consequentially initiation of proceedings u/s 153C of the Act on the assessee could not have been validly made. Further, Shri Rajeev Saxena during the course of cross examination on 25-02-2025 had categorically replied that he does not know the assessee at all. Further, he had also said that he was not aware and he does not have any information as to what business Shri Amol Awasthi was doing. There is absolutely no direct evidence or any document which shows the name of the assessee as a beneficiary in any other manner. Further, we find that the identical satisfaction note u/s 153C of the Act were recorded by the ld AO for initiation of proceedings u/s 153C of the Act for assessee as well as for his son Shri Amol Awasthi. This itself goes to prove that the ld AO himself was not sure as to whether the transactions pertain or relate or belong to assessee herein or of Shri Amol Awasthi. This is further fortified by the fact that the additions has been made on substantive basis in the hands of the assessee herein on account of commission income and on protective basis in the hands of Shri Amol Awasthi. This action has been held to be a nullity on very assumption of jurisdiction itself by this Tribunal in the case of Shri Amol Awasthi vide order dated 13-09-2024 referred supra. The relevant paragraphs have already been reproduced while recording the arguments of the ld AR supra. The contents of the excel sheet, at the cost of repetition, does not contain the name of the assessee and also contains various narrations in the form - “to be identified”, “Trf Sanjiv Nanda” , “details awaited” etc. These expressions clearly depict that the said excel sheet cannot be relied upon at all and it lacks complete evidentiary value and had to be construed to be merely a dumb document. Further, we find that one common satisfaction note was recorded on 29-09- 2021 for AYs 2011-12 to 2020-21 by the ld AO which itself would make the entire search assessment proceedings qua the assessee fatal to the revenue as held by the Hon‟ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DCIT Vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma reported in 159 taxmann.com 179 (Kar HC). The relevant operative portion of the said order is as under:-
53. Further, satisfaction note is required to be recorded under Section 153C of the IT Act for each Assessment Year and in the impugned proceedings, a consolidated satisfaction note has been recorded for different Assessment Years, which also vitiates the entire assessment proceedings. In view of all these findings, it is said that the appeals do not have any substance for seeking intervention as sought for by the appellant / Revenue.
16.1 It is pertinent to note that the Special Leave Petition filed by the revenue against this decision was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 165 taxmann.com 846. Similar view is taken by Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Saksham Commodities Ltd Vs. ITO supra reported in 464 ITR 1 (Del).
In view of the aforesaid detailed observations and respectfully following 17. the various judicial precedents, we find that the ld CIT(A) was duly justified in holding that the materials referred to by the ld AO lacks any evidentiary value and the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C of the Act is flawed as there was no existence of any incriminating material or information qua the assessee. Accordingly, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed.
In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. 18.
Order pronounced in the open court on 06/02/2026.