M/S. IMPACT FORGING, ,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , RAJKOT
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Conducted through E-Court, Rajkot
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED
आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, अहमदाबादनायपीप IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, (Conducted through E-Court, Rajkot) BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And Ms MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.307 to 311/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: (2011-2012 to 2015-16) M/s. Impact Forging, D.C.I.T, 6, Mani Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-1, Near Popullar Roller, Rajkot. Mavdi Plot, Rajkot. PAN: AADFI1340Q
(Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.C Yadav, A.R Revenue by : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.D.R सुिव्ईकीत्रीख/Date of Hearing : 18/10/2023 घोरर्कीत्रीख/Date of Pronouncement: 08/11/2023 आदेश/O R D E R PER BENCH: The captioned appeals have been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”) arising in the matter of penalty order passed under s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2015-16.
First, we take up ITA No. 307/Ahd/2018, an appeal by the assessee for 2. the AY 2011-12 as lead case/year. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
ITA nos.315-317/Rjt/2017 Asstt. Year 2012-13 2
The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad erred in passing an ex parte order and not a speaking order. 2. On merits, the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad erred in upholding levy of penalty of Rs.60,738/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and withdraw any ground of appeal anytime up to the hearing of this appeal.
3.1 The assessee vide letter dated 26-10-2020 has also raised the additional grounds of appeal which are reproduced as under:
Additional Grounds of appeal a) On the facts and Circumstances of the case and on the basis of information obtained under RTI dated 24.06.2020, the order of AO levying penalty is void ab initio as the same has been initiated in pursuance to an order of assessment, dated 27.12.2016, which itself was a nullity, as the approval granted u/s 153D of the Act is mechanical approval. b) On the facts and under the circumstances of the case the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is void as no specific notice u/s 274 has been issued by the AO. c) On the facts and circumstances of the case the penalty order is bad in law as the approval of JCIT dated 24.05.2017 was an approval without application of mind. 6. It is well settled that an assessee can raise a legal additional ground or even fresh legal plea at any stage of the proceedings. In support the appellant seeks to rely on the judgments of Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Varas International reported in 284 ITR 80(SC) and NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383(SC). Special Bench decision in the case of DHL operators reported in 108 TTJ 152(SB). 7. It is further relevant to mention here that the assessee had not raise these grounds categorically at the time of filing of appeal since the assessee was of the firm belief that the Approval of Additional Commissioner as stipulated in section 153D was in consonance with the provisions of law. However the assessee came to know the fact that the approval is a mechanical approval, when the department has provided the reply of RTI dated 24.06.2020. And hence delay in raising the above grounds is a bonafide delay and hence the same may kindly be condoned. 8. It is also settled position of law that limitation of additional ground would relate backs to original grounds as held in the following cases. a. Shilpa Associates VS ITO -263 ITR 0317(Raj):- b. Madad Lal Ansari Vs DCIT-272 ITR 560(Raj)- 9. The appellant shall be highly grateful if the aforesaid grounds are permitted to be urged which had not been raised due to inadequate information, which was subsequently obtained under RTI.
ITA nos.315-317/Rjt/2017 Asstt. Year 2012-13 3
The learned AR for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the additional ground raised by the assessee vide letter dated 26-10-2020 goes to the root of the matter and all the facts related to the additional ground are available on the record. Therefore, the same needs to be admitted in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. reported in 229 ITR 383 where it was held as under: Under section 254, the Tribunal may after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit. The power of the Tribunal in dealing with appeals is, thus, expressed in the widest possible terms. The purpose of the assessment proceedings before the taxing authorities is to assess correctly the tax liability of an assessee in accordance with law. If, for example, as a result of a judicial decision given while the appeal is pending before the Tribunal, it is found that a non-taxable item is taxed or a permissible deduction is denied, there is no reason why the assessee should be prevented from raising that question before the Tribunal for the first time, so long as the relevant facts are on record in respect of that item. There is no reason to restrict the power of the Tribunal under section 254 only to decide the grounds which arise from the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Both the assessee as well as the Department have a right to file an appeal/cross-objections before the Tribunal. There is no reason why the Tribunal should be prevented from considering questions of law arising in assessment proceedings although not raised earlier. ******** The view that the Tribunal is confined only to issues arising out of the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) takes too narrow a view of the powers of the Tribunal. Undoubtedly, the Tribunal will have the discretion to allow or not allow a new ground to be raised. But where the Tribunal is only required to consider a question of law arising from the facts which are on record in the assessment proceedings there is no reason why such a question should not be allowed to be raised when it is necessary to consider that question in order to correctly assess the tax liability of an assessee. 5. On the other hand, the learned DR did not raise any objection to the admission of the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee.
Heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the materials available on record. The additional ground raised by the assessee is legal in nature and therefore the same can be raised at any stage in pursuance to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd (supra). Hence, we admit the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee and proceed to adjudicate the same.
ITA nos.315-317/Rjt/2017 Asstt. Year 2012-13 4
The only interconnected issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty levied by the AO for ₹ 60,738/- under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case, a partnership firm, is engaged in the business of real estate. A search under section 132 of the Act was carried out at the office premises in the case of M/s Reva Infrastructure Incorporation dated 16 October 2014. As a result of the search, various documents of an incriminating nature were seized which belonged to the search person as well as the assessee. Accordingly, the proceedings under section 153C of the Act were initiated in the name of the assessee. The AO during the proceeding under section 153C of the Act found that there was difference in profit and capital balance reported in books of account maintained for income tax return purpose viz-a-viz books of account seized during the search. On question by the AO, the assessee has accepted the differential amount of ₹ 2,02,459/- as income. The AO accordingly made an addition of ₹ 2,02,459/- to the total income of the assessee in the assessment framed under section 153C read with section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27 December 2016. The AO in the assessment order initiated the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the charge of concealment of income which came to be confirmed by the AO in the penalty order dated 25 May 2017 for an amount of ₹ 60,738/- being 100% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded.
On appeal, the learned CIT (A) also confirmed the order of the AO vide ex- parte order dated 27th June 2018.
Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us.
ITA nos.315-317/Rjt/2017 Asstt. Year 2012-13 5
The learned AR before us has challenged the penalty levied by the authorities below under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on merit as well as on the technical ground i.e. validity of the penalty order was tested on two counts.
11.1 The contention of the learned AR on the legal point was that the assessment under section 153(3) read with section 143(3) of the Act has been framed without obtaining the proper approval from the Joint Commissioner under the provisions of section 153D of the Act. Therefore, the assessment framed under section 153(3) read with section 143(3) of the Act is bad in law. Thus, the learned AR pointed out that once the assessment is bad in law and liable to be quashed, then the penalty arising out of such assessment order is not sustainable. Thus, the penalty order framed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not maintainable under the provisions of law.
On the contrary, the learned DR vide letter dated 5 October 2023 supported by the letter of the DCIT dated 5th of September 2023 has submitted as under: 3. Following are the salient aspects of the CBDT instruction relevant to the issue at hand. Para 1.3 mandates that AO and range head should jointly scrutinize appraisal report and seized material. Para 1.8 requires that range head should ensure proper satisfaction is recorded before issue of notice u / s 153C or u/s 148. Para 3.2 mandates that final show cause notice should be prepared in consultation with the Addl. CIT. Para 3.10 advice AO to consult higher authorities while making large additions. Thus, it can be seen that the instructions specifically mandates the involvement of the range head throughout the assessment proceedings. 3.2 In addition to the board's instructions, it is submitted that the office of the range head, central range, Rajkot is collocated in the same premise as the office of the AO. This arrangement facilitates continuous and day to day interaction between AO and range head. 3.3 From the above, it can be seen that the Assessing officer and the Range Head, from very first stage, are jointly acquainted with the appraisal report / scized material as well as the issues involved in a particular case based on which additions are going to be made in assessment order, As regards maintenance of note sheet/ documentary evidence for discussions between range head and AO, it is submitted that the same is not required by the CBDT instructions as mentioned above. Also, given the continuous and regular nature of deliberations and discussion between the range head and overline AO it is not feasible to maintain such records and accordingly such documents are not maintained as a general practice. 3.4 In view of the above, without going into the particular of the instant case it is submitted that range head is generally well-aware about the facts / issues of the search
ITA nos.315-317/Rjt/2017 Asstt. Year 2012-13 6
assessment cases. Thus, the approval granted by him u / s 153D of the Act, in short time span, with respect to search assessment can't be regarded as mechanical' and without due application of mind. 4. As far as note sheets/communications/ documents maintained during assessment proceeding of the above assessee, it is to mention that the above case has been decentralized from this office and currently assessed with ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Rajkot, therefore, the same can be collected from ITO, Ward - 3(1)(1) Rajkot. 13. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. First, we take up the legal contention of the learned AR for the assessee for our adjudication so as to whether the penalty can be levied where the validity of assessment order itself is in doubt. In this regard, the contention of the learned AR is that the assessment under section 153C read with section 143(3) of the Act was framed without proper approval under section 153D of the Act. Thus, the order passed under section 153C read with section 143(3) is bad in law and therefore no penalty proceeding can be initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act based on invalid assessment order.
13.1 The procedure under section 153D provides that where the assessment order u/s 153A(1)(b) or 153B(1)(b) is passed by AO below the rank of JCIT, he has to seek approval from the JCIT. The issue arises whether assessment/ reassessment made u/s 153C requires approval from JCIT. It seems that such approval is necessary because after receipt of seized material from the AO of the person searched, the AO of "other person" "shall proceed against such other person and issue notice and assess or reassess the income of "other person" in accordance with the provisions of section 153A of the Act, if the AO of the "other person" is satisfied that books of account/ documents/ assets seized/ requisitioned have a bearing on the determination of total income of such "other person". Thus, after initiation of proceedings u/s 153C, the machinery provisions of section 153A will apply and, therefore, approval wherever required has to be taken. In holding so, we also draw support and guidance from the order of ITAT PUNE BENCH 'B' in the case of Akil Gulamali Somji v. Income-tax Officer, Ward 4(5), reported in [2012] 20 taxmann.com 380 (Pune) wherein it was held as under:
ITA nos.315-317/Rjt/2017 Asstt. Year 2012-13 7
On perusal of the provisions laid down under section 153C, it is apparent that after issuance of notice under section 153C, the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person (against which incriminating material has been found during the course of search conducted on a person) assess or re-assess income of such other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A. Section 153B talks about time limit for completion of assessment under section 153A, whereas section 153D talks about necessity of prior approval for framing assessment in case of search or requisition. Thus the provisions laid down under section 153D are very much applicable in case of assessment of income of any other person (i.e., the person other than the person searched). 13.2 Admittedly, the assessment under section 153C read with section 143(3) of the Act has been framed by the ACIT after obtaining the approval from the Joint Commissioner as provided under section 153D of the Act. This fact can be verified from the para 11 of order of the AO which is reproduced as under: 11. This order is passed after obtaining approval of the Joint Commissioner of Income tax, Central Range, Rajkot, which was conveyed, vide his approval letter no. JCIT/CR.RJT/Asstt Apprl./ 2016-17/60 dated 27/12/2016. 13.3 However, regarding the approval granted under section 153D of the Act we note certain facts which are detailed as under: 14.3 To decide the issue on hand, it is important to note certain facts which are listed below: I. The ACIT has forwarded the draft orders to the Joint Commissioner dated 27 December 2016 through the email. II. The time mention in the email is 13.29 III. Only draft orders went sent for the approval through the email. In other words the entire assessment records were not sent to the Joint Commissioner for his approval. IV. The approval was sought by the ACIT through single email with respect of 10 different assessee. V. The approval letter by the Joint Commissioner was dated 27 December 2016.
13.4 The above facts can be verified from RTI filed by the ld. AR which is placed on record and the ld. DR has also not controverted the same.
13.5 The issue which we must decide whether the approval on hand given by the Joint Commissioner is fulfilling the mandate of the provisions of Sec. 153D of the Act vis-à-vis the legislative intent of inserting the said section in the statute. The provisions of section 153D of the Act read as under: 153D. No order of assessment or reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in
ITA nos.315-317/Rjt/2017 Asstt. Year 2012-13 8
clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153A or the assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the assessment or reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA.
13.6 The Legislative intent can also be gathered from the CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2008, dated 12.3.2008 which read as under: 50. Assessment of search cases—Orders of assessment and reassessment to be approved by the Joint Commissioner.
The existing provisions of making assessment and reassessment in cases where search has been conducted under section 132 or requisition is made under section 132A, does not provide for any approval for such assessment. 2. A new section 153D has been inserted to provide that no order of assessment or reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner except with the previous approval of the Joint Commissioner. Such provision has been made applicable to orders of assessment or reassessment passed under clause (b) of section 153A in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted under section 132 or requisition is made under section 132A. The provision has also been made applicable to orders of assessment passed under clause (b) of section 153B in respect of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted under section 132 or requisitioned is made under section 132A. Applicability- These amendments will take effect from the 1st day of June, 3. 2007. 13.7 The Legislative intent is clear in as much as prior to the insertion of Sec. 153D, there was no provision for taking approval in cases of assessment and reassessment in cases where search has been conducted. Thus, the legislature wanted the assessments/reassessments of search and seizure cases should be made with the prior approval of superior authorities which also means that the superior authorities should apply their mind on the materials based on which the officer is making the assessment and after due application of mind and based on seized materials, the superior authorities have to approve the assessment order.
ITA nos.315-317/Rjt/2017 Asstt. Year 2012-13 9
13.8 The question before us is "has this been done in the present case". The answer stands in negative because there was no application of mind of the joint Commissioner as evident from the discussion aforesaid. In other words, the application of mind of the joint Commissioner was necessary in order to achieve the legislature intent.
13.9 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahara India (Firm) v. CIT[2008] 169 Taxman 328/300 ITR 403 in the provisions of section 142(2A) where the AO after having regard to the nature and complexity/ volume of the accounts etc. was of the opinion that it is necessary so to do, he may, with the previous approval of the Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, direct the assessee to get the accounts audited by an accountant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: “Needless to emphasise that before granting approval, the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner, as the case may be, must have before him the material on the basis whereof an opinion in this behalf has been formed by the Assessing Officer. The approval must reflect the application of mind to the facts of the case.” 13.10 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs Seerajuddin & CO. in ITA Nos. 39 to 45 of 2022 order dated 15-03-2023 has also observed as under:
For all of the aforementioned reasons, the Court finds that the ITAT has correctly set out the legal position while holding that the requirement of prior approval of the superior officer before an order of assessment or reassessment is passed pursuant to a search operation is a mandatory requirement of Section 153D of the Act and that such approval is not meant to be given mechanically. The Court also concurs with the finding of the ITAT that in the present cases such approval was granted mechanically without application of mind by the Additional CIT resulting in vitiating the assessment orders themselves. 26. The question of law framed is therefore answered in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. 13.11 Likewise, the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 671 has made the following observations which are pertinent to the facts of the case in hand before us. An argument has been advanced to the effect that by making such a nomination, approval will be deemed to have been granted. The answer to the said contention must be rendered
ITA nos.315-317/Rjt/2017 Asstt. Year 2012-13 10
in the negative. The Chief Commissioner of Income-tax before granting such approval must have before him the materials on the basis whereof an opinion had been formed. A prior approval can be granted only when the materials for appointment of the extraordinary procedure is required to be taken by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer, therefore, was required to place all materials before the Commissioner of Income- tax or the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, as the case may be, to show that he intends to take recourse to the said provision having regard to the nature and complexity of the accounts of the assessee and the interests of the Revenue. No such materials had been placed before the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax. 13.12 Another section relevant to the facts in issue is Sec. 158BG which read as under: 158BG. The order of assessment for the block period shall be passed by an Assessing Officer not below the rank of an Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or an Assistant Director or Deputy Director, as the case may be: Provided that no such order shall be passed without the previous approval of— (a) the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or Principal Director or Director, as the case may be, in respect of search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A, after the 30th day of June, 1995 but before the 1st day of January, 1997; (b) the Joint Commissioner or the Joint Director, as the case may be, in respect of search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A, on or after the 1st day of January, 1997.
13.13 In this section also it is provided that the order cannot be passed without the previous approval. This section was thoroughly scrutinized by the Tribunal Madras Bench in the case of Kirtilal Kalidas & Co. v. Dy. CIT [1998] 67 ITD 573, at para-41 of its order the observations of the Tribunal are as under: 41. In these cases, the Commissioner has passed an order granting approval under section 158BG of the Act through a single order passed on 31-3-1997 without giving any reason whatsoever. As we have recorded elsewhere above, the draft assessment orders of the block period in all these cases were made on 31-3-1997 and on the very same day, i.e., on 31-3-1997 the Commissioner grants approval and that too without giving or recording any reasons whatsoever. The approval order does not disclose the points which were considered by the Commissioner and the reasons for accepting them. In our view, this is totally an unsatisfactory method of granting approval in exercise of judicial power vested in the Commissioner. 13.14 This decision of the Tribunal was considered by Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Verma Roadways v. Asstt. CIT [2000] 75 ITD 183 wherein also the assessee-appellant has challenged the validity of approval to the assessment order accorded by the CIT Kanpur. The Tribunal at Para-47 has held as under:
ITA nos.315-317/Rjt/2017 Asstt. Year 2012-13 11
Coming to the aspect of the application of mind, while granting approval, we are of the view that requirement of approval pre-supposes a proper and thorough scrutiny and application of mind. in the case of Kirtilal Kalidas & Co. (supra), the I.T.A.T. Madras Bench ‘A’ has observed that the function to be performed by the Commissioner in granting previous approval requires an enquiry and judicial approach on the entire facts, materials and evidence. It has been further observed that in law where any act or function requires application of mind and judicial discretion or approach by any authority, it partakes and assumes the character and status of a judicial or at least quasi-judicial act, particularly because their act, function, is likely to affect the rights of affected persons. 13.15 Coming to the facts of the case on hand in the light of the analytical discussion hereinabove and as mentioned elsewhere, we find that the ACIT has granted approval under section 153D of the Act in a mechanical manner and without the application of mind and without considering the materials on record. Furthermore, the approval was granted on the very same day. The said power cannot be exercised casually and in a routine manner. We are constrained to observe that in the present case, there has been no application of mind by the JCIT Commissioner before granting the approval. Therefore, we have no hesitation holding that the assessment order made u/s 143(3) of the Act r.w. sec. 153C of the Act is bad in law and deserves to be annulled.
13.16 At this juncture it is pertinent to mention that in the present case, the assessee has filed the income tax return under the provisions of section 153C of the Act declaring income of Rs. NIL. However, the AO during the assessment proceeding proposed to make addition on account of difference in profit and capital employed as per disclosed books viz-a-viz alleged undisclosed book seized during the search at the premises of searched person which was accepted by assessee. Accordingly, the assessment framed under section 153C read with section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27-12-2016 assessing the income at Rs. 2,02,459/- against the NIL income offered by the assessee. In other words, the assessee accepted the assessment framed under section 153C read with section 143(3) of the Act despite the fact that the procedures as specified under section 153D of the Act were not complied with by the AO. Now the issue arises whether the assessment order can be challenged in the penalty proceedings and consequently penalty order can be held as invalid. This question has been
ITA nos.315-317/Rjt/2017 Asstt. Year 2012-13 12
answered by this Tribunal in the case of M/s Atlanta Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT in ITA Nos. 551 & 552/AHD/2012 vide order dated 26-09-2019 by observing as under: “9.2 We however also advert to another plea raised on behalf of the assessee while assailing imposition of penalty. A plea has been inter alia raised on behalf of the assessee towards non-fulfillment of prerequisites before invocation of provisions of Section 153C of the Act. It is the case of the assessee that in the absence of jurisdiction under s.153C of the Act, the quantum proceedings under s.153C of the Act itself is non est and consequently, penalty under s.271(1)(c) of the Act could not have been imposed. On appraisal, we find force in the aforesaid plea too. The erstwhile provision of Section 153C of the Act prior to its amendment by Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015 provided that the AO was required to be satisfied that both undisclosed assets as well as documents seized etc. must ‘belong to’ a person other than the person in whose hands search was conducted and proceedings under s.153A of the Act was initiated. The expression ‘belong to’ was explained by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited vs. ACIT [2015] 370 ITR 295 (Delhi). It was observed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court that Section 153C of the Act cannot be invoked unless the AO of the searched person is satisfied for cogent reasons that seized documents do not ‘belong to’ the searched person. The distinction between expression ‘belongs to’ and ‘relates to’ or ‘refers to’ must be borne in mind by AO. It was observed by the Hon’ble Court that AO should not confuse the expression ‘belongs to’ with expression ‘relates to’ or ‘refers to’. The Hon'ble Court went on to explain the purport of the expression by giving illustration of a registered sale deed which essentially implied something more than a casual connection. In the wake of the aforesaid judgment, merely because a document/loose paper was found in the possession of a searched person showing reference to certain entries relatable to a third person, the said documents/loose paper by itself would not tantamount to be belonging to the third person. Similar view has been expressed in the case of Renu Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi) 399 ITR 262 (Del.) and Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Patel 263 CTR 362 (Guj). The co-ordinate bench Tribunal in Shailesh S Patel vs. ITO (2018) 97 taxmann.com 570 (Ahmedabad Trib.) has also reiterated the aforesaid pre-requisite for formation of ‘satisfaction’ for the purposes of Section 153C of the Act. No averment is found from the case records that the documents seized towards excess stock did belong to and was the property of the company and not of the Director from whose custody it was found. Therefore, in such non-descript and innocuous situation, where the quantum assessment itself is susceptible, the consequences in form of penalty under s.271(1)(c) of the Act would not, in our view, be justified.” 13.17 In view of the above we hold that the penalty levied by the AO in the penalty order framed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable. As such, the assessee succeeds on the technical issue raised by it. Accordingly, we refrain from adjudicating the issue raised by the assessee on merit. In other words, no separate adjudication on the issue raised by the assessee on merit is required in the given facts and circumstances. Accordingly, we dismiss ground raised by assessee on the merit as infructuous. Hence, the ground, of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
ITA nos.315-317/Rjt/2017 Asstt. Year 2012-13 13
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Coming to ITA Nos. 308 to 311/AHD/2018 appeals by the assessee for A.Ys. 2012-13 to 2015-16.
At the outset we note that the issue raised by the assessee in the captioned appeal for A.Y. 2012-13 to 2015-16 are identical to the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No. 307/AHD/2018 for the assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 307/AHD/2018 shall also be applicable for the assessment years 2012-13 to 2015-16. The appeal of the assessee for the A.Y. 2011-12 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 13 to 13.17 of this order wherein we have decided the issue partly in favour of the assessee. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2011-12 shall also be applied for the assessment years 2012-13 to 2015-16. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee for A.Ys. 2012-13 to 2015-16 are hereby partly allowed.
In the result the appeal of the assessee for AYs. 2012-13 to 2015-16 are hereby partly allowed.
In the combined, result all 5 appeals of the assessee for A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2015-16 are hereby partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the Court on 08/11/2023 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (MADHUMITA ROY ) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 08/11/2023 Manish
