M/S.AVATHAR JEWELLERS,MALAPPURAM vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, THRISSUR, THRISSUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 580/COCH/2017Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 December 2022AY 2009-103 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was insufficient. Specifically, it lacked a clear finding that the seized material "belongs to" the assessee, which is a precondition for such proceedings, especially for searches conducted before June 1, 2015.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) heard appeals concerning assessment years 2009-10 to 2012-13. The primary issue was the validity of proceedings initiated under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

The key legal issue was whether the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was adequate and met the statutory requirements, particularly regarding the ownership of the seized incriminating material.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Venugoplan, CA
For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 11.11.2022Pronounced: 13.12.2022

Per: S.S. Godara, J.M.

These assessee’s four appeals arise against the CIT(A)- IV, Kochi’sseparate orders dated 27.12.2016 [AY 2009-10], 28,12,2016 [AY 2010-11] and 29.12.2016 [AY 2011-12 to 2012-13] passed in case Nos. ITA T-52 to 55/CIT(A)-I/2014-15,respectively in proceedings under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act).

2. Heard both the parties. Case files perused.

2.

It emerges at the outset that we are required upon to decide the assessee’s first and foremost substantial ground challenging the legality of the impugned Section 153C proceedings itself for want of proper satisfaction note. The said satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer terms one to be identical in all these four cases as follows: -

“A search &seizure operation u/s. 132 of the IT.Act was carried out at the residence of Sri U. Abdul Nazar, Urathodiyil House, Thrithala, Palakkad District, one of the partners of ITA Nso. 580 to 583/Coch/2017 2 M/s. Avathar Jewellers Avathar Jewellery Group, by the Investigation Wing on 09.06.2011. The materials seized during the course of search &seizure operation and marked as "Annexure CP/A-10" is a bunch of loose sheets containing data of business transactions and other indirect expenses, indicating certain financial transactions entered .into on behalf of AvatharJewellers, Edappal. Thus, the transactions in the seized materials referred to above pertains to AvatharJewellers. Edappal. It is also seen that M/s. AvatharJewellers, Edappal is assigned in this jurisdiction vide CIT, CLT’s order No. 127/CIT/CLT/JURSDN/2011-12 dated 27.10.2011 & Corrigendum dt. 04.11.2013. Therefore, this is a case where the provisions of Section 153C of the I.T. Act are attracted. In view of the above, the income of the assessee, M/s. AvatharJewellers, Edappal has to be assessed as per the provisions of section 153C of the Income tax Act, 1961. Issue Notice u/s. 153C of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2010-11.”

3.

Learned DR could hardly dispute that the CBDT itself hasgiven greater emphasis tosuch a satisfaction in its circular No. 24 of 2015 that the same forms a precondition so as to proceed under Section 153C of the Act. Case law HevalNavinbhai Patel vs. ITO (2021) 126 taxmann.com 82 (Guj) holds that such a satisfaction in the case of a search carried out before 01.06.2015, could only be recorded in case the incriminating material in issue “belongs to” the third party other than the searched assessee.

4.

We next note that the Assessing Officer herein had nowhere recorded any satisfaction that the impugned seized material “belongs to” or “belongto” this assessee despite the fact that he had proceeded against way back in the year 2013. We further highlight that the clinching statutory expressions “pertains to” or “pertain to” or “relates to” stood w.e.f. 01.06.2015 only u/s. 153C(1) (a & b) of the Act. That being the case, we adopt stricter construction in view of the Commissioner vs. Dilip Kumar & CO. 2018(9)SCC 1 (SC) (FB) to quash the impugned Section 153C proceedings itself. Ordered accordingly.

5.

All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic.

ITA Nso. 580 to 583/Coch/2017 3 M/s. Avathar Jewellers 6. This assessee’s four appeals are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.

Dictated and pronounced in the open Court on 13th December, 2022.

More judgments on Section 153C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →