SHRI.T.RAGHAVENDRA GOWDA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2220/BANG/2016Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 March 2016AY 2009-20104 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found it unclear whether the AO of the searched person had recorded the requisite satisfaction. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after examining this aspect.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against the CIT(A)'s order. The core issue was whether the Assessing Officer (AO) of the searched person had recorded the necessary satisfaction for initiating proceedings under Section 153C of the Income-tax Act.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of proceedings initiated under Section 153A read with Section 153C, specifically concerning the requirement of satisfaction note by the AO of the searched person.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 153A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH ‘A’, BANGALORE

For Appellant: Ms. Preethi Patel, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri A.R.V Sreenivasan, JCIT

PER SHRI AK GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee which is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – 11, Bangalore dated 30.9.2016 for assessment year 2009-10.

2.

Ground Nos.1 to 4 raised by the assessee are as under:

3.

It was submitted by ld AR of the assessee that as per the provisions of section 153c of the Income-tax Act, the AO of the searched person has to record satisfaction that valuables or books of account and documents etc. seized belongs to or relates to a person other than searched person then he can hand over the documents and valuables to the AO of such other person to proceed against such other person by way of issuing notice u/s 153A of the Income-tax Act. He further submitted that in the impugned order in Para No.10.2 of his order, it is stated by ld CIT(A) that in the assessment order, the AO has reproduced the satisfaction note in the order itself. He has drawn our attention to the assessment order and submitted that no satisfaction note has been reproduced by the AO in the assessment order.

4.

At this juncture, ld DR of the Revenue submitted that assessment records are available with him which contain satisfaction note. Bench enquired as to whether this satisfaction note is of the AO of the assessee or of the A.O. of the searched person. In reply, it was submitted by the DR of the revenue that the note available is of the A.O. of the assessee and about the satisfaction note recorded by the AO that the searched person, he is not aware and for that, the matter may be restored back to the file of A.O. or CIT (A) for a fresh decision after examination of this aspect.

5.

I considered the rival submissions. In my considered opinion, as per requirement of sec. 153C of the Income-tax Act, AO of the searched person has to record requisite satisfaction but in the present case, it is not clear as to whether such satisfaction has been recorded by the AO of the searched person or not. Hence, I feel it proper that this matter should go back to the file of ld CIT(A) for fresh decision after examination of this aspect. Accordingly, I set aside the order of the CIT (A) and restore the entire matter back to the file of CIT(A) to first examine this aspect as to whether requisite satisfaction was recorded by the AO of the searched person or not and after that, he should decide the validity of the proceedings initiated u/s 153A r.w.s 153C of the Income-tax Act. If it is found that requisite satisfaction was recorded by the AO of the searched person, he should decide afresh merit of various additions made by the AO and if it is found that no such satisfaction was recorded by the AO of the searched person then the entire proceedings itself will become bad in law and no fresh adjudication is called for. I am not required to examine and decide the merit of various additions at this stage.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21st March, 2017.

More judgments on Section 153C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →