No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI
This appeal filed by the Revenue is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Pune [in short CIT(A)], in appeal No. Pn/CIT(A)-11/DCIT, cen.Cir.3, Thane/140&141/2015-16 dated 03.03.2017. The Assessment was framed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Thane (in short ‘DCIT/ AO’) for the A.Y. 2008-09 vide order dated 27.03.2015 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).
At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee took us through the Para 26 of the CIT(A)’s order, wherein, he, while deciding the appeal for AY 2007-08, has held that the addition made by AO is not on the basis of seized material found during the course of search conducted under section 132 of the Act. According to the CIT(A) this addition falls outside the ambit of section 153A of the Act. The learned Counsel referred to the following Para 26 of CIT(A)’s order which reads as under:
26. Thus the addition made by the AO is neither based on any seized material nor is supported by any enquiry conducted during the asst proceedings. Such an addition falls outside the ambit of section 153A as discussed above. Hence the addition is unsustainable in law. The AO is directed to delete the addition of 50,00,000/- made on account of unexplained share capital.
The learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the Tribunal for AY 2007-08 in in assessee’s own case vide order dated 19.09.2017 has confirmed the order of CIT(A) vide Para 5 as under: - “5. Having heard the rival submissions, I am of the view that the order passed by the learned CIT(A) on this issue does not call for any interference with the decision rendered by the learned CIT(A) is in accordance with the decision rendered by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Shiva)Ltd.
(supra). Accordingly, I uphold the order passed by the learned CIT(A)."
When a query was put to the learned Counsel, he stated that the assessee has filed original return of income under section 139(1) of the Act on 21.08.2008. Subsequently, search under section 132 of the Act was carried out on Leena Group on 12.09.2012. Accordingly, the AO to complete the assessment for this assessment years issued notice under section 153A of the Act and framed assessment under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act and added the share capital and share premium amounting to ₹ 1 crores received from the following four companies: - “Sr. Name of the investor Amount of No. share capital & Share premium 1. Artilegence Bio Innovation Ltd. 25,00,000/- Amritdham, Suit No. 005&006, Nityanand Nagar, Howrah-711109 2. Doldrum Invest and Fin Pvt Ltd. 25,00,000/- B-501 pushpak Apts, Ghartanpada W.E. Highway, Dahisar (W) M-68 3. Oshin Invest and Fin Pvt. Ltd 25,00,000/- B-501 Pushpak Apts, Ghartanpada W.E. Highway, Dahisar (W) M-68 4. Stocknet International Ltd. 25,00,000/- Total 1,00,00,000/- 5. According to the learned Counsel, the AO admitted that this share capital was noticed from the accounts of the assessee filed along with original return of income with the department and there is no reference at all in the assessment order regarding any seized/ searched material which can be co-related with the share application money or share premium received by assessee. And on that very basis, the CIT(A) deleted the addition by following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. (2015) 374 ITR 645 (Bom). When this was confronted to the learned CIT Departmental Representative, he could not controvert the above factual position. Aggrieved, Revenue is in second appeal before Tribunal.
After hearing both the sides and going through the facts, it is clear that there is no seized material whatsoever to co-relate with this addition of share capital and share premium, which the assessee declared in the final accounts/ audited accounts filed with original return of income and filed on 21.08.2008 much before the date of search i.e. 12.09.2012. Hence, this issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. (supra) held as under:-
“31. We, therefore, hold that the Special Bench's understanding of the legal provision is not perverse nor does it suffer from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. The Special Bench in that regard held as under:-
“The provision under section 153A is applicable where a search or requisition is initiated after 31.5.2003. In such a case the AO is obliged to issue notice u/s 153A in respect of 6 preceding years, preceding the year in which search etc. has been initiated. Thereafter he has to assess or reassess the total income of these six years. It is obligatory on the part of the AO to assess or reassess total income of the six years as provided in section 153A(1)(b) and reiterated in the 1st proviso to this section. The second proviso states that the assessment or reassessment pending on the date of initiation of the search or requisition shall abate. We find that there is no divergence of views in so far as the provision contained in section 153A till the 1st proviso. The divergence starts from the second proviso which states that pending assessment or reassessment on the date of initiation of search shall abate. This means that an assessment or reassessment pending on the date of initiation of search shall cease to exist and no further action shall be taken thereon. The assessment shall now be made u/s 153A. The case of Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that necessary corollary to this provision is that completed assessment shall not abate. These assessments become final except in so far and to the extent as undisclosed income is found in the course of search. On the other hand, it has been argued by the Ld. Standing Counsel that abatement of pending assessment is only for the purpose of avoiding two assessments for the same year, one being regular assessment and the other being assessment u/s 153A. In other words these two assessments coalesce into one assessment. The second proviso does not contain any word or words to the effect that no reassessment shall be made in respect of a completed assessment. The language is clear in this behalf and therefore literal interpretation should be followed. Such interpretation does not produce manifestly absurd or unjust results as section 153A (i)(b) and the first proviso clearly provide for assessment or reassessment of all six years. It may cause hardship to some assesses where one or more of such assessments has or have been completed before the date of initiation of search. This is hardly of any relevance in view of clear and unambiguous words used by the legislature. This interpretation does not cause any absurd etc. results. There is no casus omissus and supplying any would be against the legislative intent and against the very rule in this behalf that it should be supplied for the purpose of achieving legislative intent. The submissions of the Ld. Counsels are manifold, the foremost being that the provision u/s 153A should be read in conjunction with the provision contained in section 132(1), the reason being that the latter deals with search and seizure and the former deals with assessment in case of search etc, thus, the two are inextricably linked with each other.
Before proceeding further, we may now examine the provision contained in sub-section (2) of section 153, which has been dealt with by Ld. Counsel. It provides that if any assessment made under subsection (1) is annulled in appeal etc., then the abated assessment revives. However, if such annulment is further nullified, the assessment again abates. The case of the Ld. Counsel is that this provision further shows that completed assessments stand on a different footing from the pending assessments because appeals etc. proceedings continue to remain in force in case of completed assessments and their fate depends upon subsequent orders in appeal. On consideration of the provision and the submissions, we find that this provision also makes it clear that the abatement of pending proceedings is not of such permanent nature that they cease to exist for all times to come. The interpretation of the Ld. Counsel, though not specifically stated, would be that on annulment of the assessment made u/s 153(1), the AO gets the jurisdiction to assess the total income which was vested in him earlier independent of the search and which came to an end due to initiation of the search.
The provision contained in section 132 (1) empowers the officer to issue a warrant of search of the premises of a person where any one or more of conditions mentioned therein is or are satisfied, i.e. - a) summons or notice has been issued to produce books of account or other documents but such books of account or documents have not been produced, b) summons or notice has been or might be issued, he will not produce the books of account or other documents mentioned therein, or c) he is in possession of any money or bullion etc. which represents wholly or partly the income or property which has not been and which would not be disclosed for the purpose of assessment, called as undisclosed income or property. We find that the provision in section 132 (1) does not use the word "incriminating document". Clauses (a) and (b) of section 132(1) employ the words "books of account or other documents". For harmonious interpretation of this provision with provision contained in section 153A, all the three conditions on satisfaction of which a warrant of search can be issued will have to be taken into account.
Having held so, an assessment or reassessment u/s 153A arises only when a search has been initiated and conducted. Therefore, such an assessment has a vital link with the initiation and conduct of the search. We have mentioned that a search can be authorised on satisfaction of one of the three conditions enumerated earlier. Therefore, while interpreting the provision contained in section 153A, all these conditions will have to be taken into account. With this, we proceed to literally interpret to provision in 153A as it exists and read it alongside the provision contained in section 132(1).
The provision comes into operation if a search or requisition is initiated after 31.5.2003. On satisfaction of this condition, the AO is under obligation to issue notice to the person requiring him to furnish the return of income of six years immediately preceding the year of search. The word used is "shall" and, thus, there is no option but to issue such a notice. Thereafter he has to assess or reassess total income of these six years. In this respect also, the word used is "shall" and, therefore, the AO has no option but to assess or reassess the total income of these six years. The pending proceedings shall abate. This means that out of six years, if any assessment or reassessment is pending on the date of initiation of the search, it shall abate. In other words pending proceedings will not be proceeded with thereafter. The assessment has now to be made u/s 153A (1)(b) and the first proviso. It also means that only one assessment will be made under the aforesaid provisions as the two proceedings i.e. assessment or reassessment proceedings and proceedings under this provision merge into one. If assessment made under sub-section (1) is annulled in appeal or other legal proceedings, then the abated assessment or reassessment shall revive. This means that the assessment or reassessment, which had abated, shall be made, for which extension of time has been provided under section 153B.
The question now is - what is the scope of assessment or reassessment of total income u/s 153A (1) (b) and the first proviso? We are of the view that for answering this question, guidance will have to be sought from section 132(1). If any books of account or other documents relevant to the assessment had not been produced in the course of original assessment and found in the course of search in our humble opinion such books of account or other documents have to be taken into account while making assessment or reassessment of total income under the aforesaid provision. Similar position will obtain in a case where undisclosed income or undisclosed property has been found as a consequence of search. In other words, harmonious interpretation will produce the following results: - a) In so far as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make original assessment and assessment u/s 153A merge into one and only one assessment for each assessment year shall be made separately on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record of the AO, (b) in respect of non-abated assessments, the assessment will be made on the basis of books of account or other documents not produced in the course of original assessment but found in the course of search, and undisclosed income or undisclosed property discovered in the course of search.”
Respectfully, following the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. (supra), CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition and we confirm the same. The appeal of Revenue is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of Revenue dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 04-10-2018.