SRI.ANIL H LAD vs. DCIT,

12.6.5 In the case on hand, we find that there was a search under section 132 of the Act in the case of the assessee on 26.10.2007. After the search, notices under section 153A of the Act were issued, assessments were framed thereunder by the AO. During the pendency thereof; the AO received material / information from the AO of Shri. Manoj Kumar Jain. As per the second proviso to section 153C of the Act, the assessment proceedings pending under section 153A of the Act in the case of the assessee before the AO would abate on the date the AO received the seized material from the AO of Shri. Manoj Kumar Jain and fresh proceedings under section 153C of the Act ought to have been initiated. However, it is seen that, upon receipt of the said information / materials, the AO did not assume jurisdiction under section 153C of the Act, but rather chose to use the said materials / information for making additions in the impugned orders of assessment concluded under section 153A of the Act. The AO has discussed these additions in the order of assessment under the caption “ISSUE ARISING OUT OF SEARCH CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR JAIN”. The AO noted that the assessment proceedings in the case of Shri. Manoj Kumar Jain were ‘being concluded at Central Circle-1, Belgaum’. Thereafter, he has gone on to set-out the issues in the case of Shri. Manoj Kumar Jain, relevant to the assessee in the case on hand. But, no satisfaction, it appears, has been recorded that these materials have a bearing on the determination of income. Thus, the AO has not followed the procedure laid down in section 153C and 1853/Bang/2013 ITA Nos.129 to 131/Bang/2014 Page 20 of 32 of the Act for taking cognizance of the material found / seized in the case of Shri. Manoj Kumar Jain and making an assessment with reference to those materials in the case on hand.

12.6.6 The Kolkata Bench of ITAT in the case of Krishna Kumar Singhania (168 ITD 217) has considered the provisions of sections 153A and 153C of the Act and after examining the different scope of these two sections, at para 10 of its order, has held as under:- “We have heard the rival submissions. We find that it is not in dispute that there were no documents that were seized from the premises of the assessee except loose sheets vide seized document reference KKS / 1 comprising of 8 pages , for which satisfactory explanation has been given by the assessee and no addition was made by the Id AO on this seized document. The seized document used by the Id AO for making the addition in section 153A assessment is CG/1 to 11 and CG/HD/1 which were seized only from the office premises of Cygnus group of companies in which assessee is a director. In this regard, it would be pertinent to note that as per section 292C of the Act, there is a presumption that the documents , assets, books of accounts etc found at the time of search in the premises of a person is always presumed to be belonging to him / them unless proved otherwise. This goes to prove that the presumption derived is a rebuttable presumption. Then in such a scenario, the person on whom presumption is drawn , has got every right to state that the said documents does not belong to him / them . The Id AO if he is satisfied with such explanation , has got recourse to proceed on such other person (i.e the person to whom the said documents actually belong to) in terms of section 153C of the Act by recording satisfaction to that effect by way of transfer of those materials to the AO assessing the such other person. This is the mandate provided in section 153C of the Act. In the instant case, if at all, the seized documents referred to in CG/1 to 11 and CG/HD/1 is stated to be belonging to assessee herein, then the only legal recourse available to the department is to proceed on the assessee herein in terms of section 153C of the Act. In this regard, we would like to place reliance on the recent decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Pinaki Misra & Sangeeta Misra [(2017) 148 DTR 219 (Delhi)] = [TS-5161-HC-2017(DELHI)-0] wherein it was held that, no addition could be made on the basis of evidence gathered from